Place your own Lab Cache!?!?!

9k · February 6, 2014

Most of the caches in my country are hidden without knowledge of the property owner (a huge proportion of the land is privately owned). We do not have a land manager system.

What made geocaching survive relatively well for the first years was the small number of cachers which did not attract the attention of non-geocachers. This has changed in recent years and more and more troubles showed up. Sooner or later there will be laws that seriously restrict geocaching. In Germany the Groundspeak reviewers have already started a while back to become much stricter with the effect that many caches types never get published as no permission is obtainable for them. The number of hidden caches in many areas and in particular of involved and complex caches is decreasing as a result and this leads to more cachers leaving geocaching as it became boring to them.

Sounds like it's not a problem with where geocaching is going, sounds like it's a problem with 1) people essentially trespassing and breaking laws and 2) unfortunately a country in which it's hard to find places where caches can be hidden without trespassing.

I feel for your region... geocaching shouldn't die out! But frankly it's good that restrictions are being put in place to stop caches being placed where permission is required but not attained. Perhaps it's a cultural thing - nonetheless if the laws are being broken, Groundspeak won't stand for it.

I'm sure there are other concerns related to this, but I just wanted to focus on that one point you raised about permission and essentially subverting authority (property owners & trespassing).

Additionally, if it looks like "urban cachers" are on the rise and they seem to be doing damage to the pastime, then continue to do what you can to encourage the community in a direction that is helpful and positive... local events, 101's, themed adventures, sponsored events (not commercially, but as per getting permission to hold events somewhere that can be seen a benefit to public perception, for example).

Once again, as entrenched geocaching community - we have the ability to make change.

1.3k · February 6, 2014

Kind of a basic question and it's probably been covered already, but now that I've submitted/hid a lab cache, does that show up in my profile anywhere? Do I get notified when it gets logged? I don't see anything on my profile to indicate I've placed a lab cache but on the creation page, it shows that I'm logged in under my geocaching name...so you'd think it would show somewhere on geocaching account.

February 6, 2014

Kind of a basic question and it's probably been covered already, but now that I've submitted/hid a lab cache, does that show up in my profile anywhere?

No

Do I get notified when it gets logged?

Good question. I was wondering the same thing.

6.8k · February 6, 2014

Sounds like it's not a problem with where geocaching is going, sounds like it's a problem with 1) people essentially trespassing and breaking laws and 2) unfortunately a country in which it's hard to find places where caches can be hidden without trespassing.

I feel for your region... geocaching shouldn't die out! But frankly it's good that restrictions are being put in place to stop caches being placed where permission is required but not attained. Perhaps it's a cultural thing - nonetheless if the laws are being broken, Groundspeak won't stand for it.

The central issue is neither an issue of trespassing nor of breaking laws. In my region enormous amounts of forest areas and mountains are not owned by the state (e.g. the Roman Catholic church and monasteries own a lot of forest area). There are official hiking trails that lead through these areas and the Austrian laws also allow leaving the trails in forest areas (there are some exceptions) if it is not a nature protection area. So those who go out for caches and search for them are in the majority of cases (there are of course exceptions) are not getting into some grey area at all. The currently existing laws do not say anything about geocaching. Hiding geocaching could however be seen as leaving trash. In any case, there is of course nothing in the laws that allows the hiding of geocaching. In many cases it would be hard to impossible however to obtain permission for hiding geocaches and it is often not even easy to find out who owns a the land (it is quite a bureaucratic process and the owner might change many times along a hike). The monasteries and most other property owners have far more important things to do than to deal with people who want to hide plastic containers in the woods.

That's very different system to the land manager system of e.g. most of the parks in North America.

Virtual caches would fit very well in this setting where visits to the locations are officially allowed (which is the case in the majority of situations) and no permission is required for this part of the activity.

I do know that the situation in the US is different. There the existence of virtuals, might lead to the abolishment of physical caches in many parks.

Given the situation above, I see some appeal in an experiment with virtual caches in the framework of lab caches. In order to allow for the type of virtual I have in mind, however much would have to be changed with respect to the lab cache form and the creation process of lab caches.

The currently available feedback from the German speaking area is devastatingly negative as the submission form (1000 limit, only ASCII, no photos etc) and the fact that no changes are possible is regarded.

Additionally, if it looks like "urban cachers" are on the rise and they seem to be doing damage to the pastime, then continue to do what you can to encourage the community in a direction that is helpful and positive... local events, 101's, themed adventures, sponsored events (not commercially, but as per getting permission to hold events somewhere that can be seen a benefit to public perception, for example).

Damage might not be the right term. They simply take over by their large number and turn the activity into something else. I'm not talking about cachers who damage caches or do not hide them properly. It's just the focus of interest that has dramatically changed. As I said I do not think that those who prefer my preferred style of geocaching are more valuable/better/.... than the others. It's just unfortunate for me that so many of the like-minded have left or are leaving because this is not any longer the geocaching they have loved in the past.

Edited February 6, 2014 by cezanne

6.8k · February 6, 2014

Ok, honestly, there is nothing about the current period of lab caches that promotes smartphone caching

I just learnt from a link to a lab cache which someone provided a French geocaching forum that

the following is stated on each lab cache page

Here's what you need to know: It's best to play on a mobile device. If that won't work for you, download the file to your GPS or print the page.

So that indeed shows that the key audience are users of mobile devices, not necessarily smartphones. I'm aware that smartphones are not a necessity, but the statement above makes it clear

what Groundspeak has in mind. The kind of cache descriptions I had in mind with lots of text and pictures definitely would not best to use in mobile devices. There a paper printout

would be the best option.

Cezanne

Edited February 6, 2014 by cezanne

9k · February 6, 2014

The central issue is neither an issue of trespassing nor of breaking laws. In my region enormous amounts of forest areas and mountains are not owned by the state (e.g. the Roman Catholic church and monasteries own a lot of forest area). There are official hiking trails that lead through these areas and the Austrian laws also allow leaving the trails in forest areas (there are some exceptions) if it is not a nature protection area. So those who go out for caches and search for them are in the majority of cases (there are of course exceptions) are not getting into some grey area at all. The currently existing laws do not say anything about geocaching. Hiding geocaching could however be seen as leaving trash. In any case, there is of course nothing in the laws that allows the hiding of geocaching. In many cases it would be hard to impossible however to obtain permission for hiding geocaches and it is often not even easy to find out who owns a the land (it is quite a bureaucratic process and the owner might change many times along a hike). The monasteries and most other property owners have far more important things to do than to deal with people who want to hide plastic containers in the woods.

Well that's an interesting predicament. Again, it's unfortunate that your local region of the world has a certain structure that makes the adoption of geocaching as a viable and popular hobby difficult. I don't know what your solution is. But as the hobby natural grows, and Groundspeak does not want to 1) cause problems with any authority (as that would shut down the activity) and 2) not show any disrespect for nature (a universal standard), I think it ultimately is up to the local region community, wherever in the world, to find a way to make the pastime compatible with local laws and regulations and ease the critics' minds. Don't blame Groundspeak for having to deal with the way any local community grows. If a different type of cacher starts to enjoy the game and that inadvertently brings forth standards that Groundspeak enforces everywhere else in the world that it's prompted to, well... it may be hard to accept, but Groundspeak won't be condoning breaking laws, and of course they don't want its players purposefully upsetting land owners/managers. They do their best to help and encourage its acceptance where it can, but ultimately it's up to the local community to make the positive first-hand impression of the hobby with the locals.

The currently available feedback from the German speaking area is devastatingly negative as the submission form (1000 limit, only ASCII, no photos etc) and the fact that no changes are possible is regarded.

I wouldn't say that's an opinion limited to German speaking players. Those are standard limitations... any single person around the world may see that as a hindrance or not.

But yes, if you don't like it, then provide that feedback.

It's just unfortunate for me that so many of the like-minded have left or are leaving because this is not any longer the geocaching they have loved in the past.

I feel for you. Things change, and that can hurt. There's nothing stopping anyone from starting up a new resource that provides the 'classic' entertainment though

Here's what you need to know: It's best to play on a mobile device. If that won't work for you, download the file to your GPS or print the page.

So that indeed shows that the key audience are users of mobile devices, not necessarily smartphones. I'm aware that smartphones are not a necessity, but the statement above makes it clear what Groundspeak has in mind. The kind of cache descriptions I had in mind with lots of text and pictures definitely would not best to use in mobile devices. There a paper printout would be the best option.

Not quite sure what you're saying here...

1) "that indeed shows" the key audience: mobile devices, not necessarily smartphones

2) you are aware smartphones are not a necessity

3) it's clear what Groundspeak has in mind (to play on a mobile device, but you're implying smartphones?)

4) lots of text and pictures not best for use in mobile devices, paper would be best option

Earlier you stated you believe with lab caches Groundspeak is continuing its push to cater to smartphone users.

I don't know if it's just language, but your response above doesn't seem to jive with that.

When they say "It's best to play on a mobile device", I take that to mean actually playing the lab with the mobile device in your hand is better than 1) playing on desktop, 2) printing it out, 3) better to have labs that require some kind of gps use. But, if using a mobile device isn't working for you, it's still possible to do it by printing out the listing. It may be harder to complete depending on what the creator intends for you to do, but that's your best backup.

The statement itself does seem trivial - I mean, geocaching is about using a mobile device (smartphone or handheld). So of course it's best to play on a mobile device. But this Lab creation form allows for non-gps-required instances. So this, to me, seems to be encouraging gps use.

Of course you could look at it like the "mobile device" they're referring to is a smartphone - and so "it's best to play on" also makes sense because the listings only exist as web pages. You'd need to download the GPS info to your handheld if you don't use a smartphone. Functionally, completing a lab cache doesn't require a smartphone. But it's certainly easier to deal with it if you have the internet in your hand, as it were.

That's not favouring smartphones over the handhelds. They're just saying it's fundamentally easier to use in the context of lab caches.

Because mobile internet.

And as with regular caches, GPS data can still be downloaded (or copied) to a device. You just can't do (internet) web-based searches for them or pocket queries including them.

(Do lab cache listings actually provide, say a .LOC file to make downloading GPS info easier? I haven't looked at a Lab listing yet)

2k · February 6, 2014

At least in my area the changes that took place in the community have actively kicked out many of those who have been there in the early days and had an outdoor background (without those people geocaching would not even exist in my country) and as a replacement there has been a huge increase in urban geocachers who are there to play a game and many of them miss the appropriate respect for the nature.

Two points here - 1 - "kicked" out or voluntarily left? Big difference and I'm attributing it to the fact that English isn't your native language. 2 - "respect for nature" - so offer a series of events that incorporate respect/love for nature so that you can spread it to the next generation

Having more customers also increases the costs - you need more support staff, translators, larger servers, more bandwith etc.

So it is really clear to me whether for geocaching it is that simple as mentioned above.

Not quite true in that sense as they already have most of what you have mentioned. They'll need to incrementally upgrade, but not to the point that it's going to cost some serious dollars on their end. I would venture to guess that the servers are their single biggest expense. Unless GS gets a sudden surge in membership, I'm pretty sure they've covered this pretty well.

I had a look at your profile and I saw that you come from the US. The situation of geocaching in the US is very different from the situation in countries like Germany and Austria.

Not as different as you think. My state's DNR (the land manager) archived all the caches on their property and then re-enabled them once people met the new guidelines and filled out the new paperwork. Many were hidden without regard to guidelines that were in place so they decided to put new, more strict ones in place, and make all caches adhere to the new guidelines. Sounds like that is what is going to happen over there. All this was brought about because the DNR was concerned about Geowoodstock X and the subsequent effect on nature that many people going into the parks would have. What's funny to note is that a large majority of caches in the state parks that were in the area didn't see any large increase in visits, so that theory was proved wrong.

Sooner or later there will be laws that seriously restrict geocaching. In Germany the Groundspeak reviewers have already started a while back to become much stricter with the effect that many caches types never get published as no permission is obtainable for them.

See comment above with the rules our state parks and lands have in place to "restrict" geocaching. It's not well-received here and the number of caches has NOT gone back up to previous levels. D/T combinations that used to be in place are no longer allowed but it has only caused a few cachers to leave the game. We have other properties (not state managed) that encourage caching so we hide them there and travel there to find them. More people have looked to obtain permission to hide on private property (I have a couple I've received permission from) and I'm guessing that there would be a way to find out who owns the property so you could contact them to place a geocache on their property.

Yes, some cachers are more concerned about how many icons, what types, how many caches, etc... However, that doesn't affect YOU and your caching. What affects your caching is who, in your area, is still hiding caches that you would like to find, not the addition of new icons.

New icons were just one of many examples that influence the way many people are caching. All sorts of stats play a role as well.

Some years ago I chose the D and T rating of my caches in the manner it seemed appropriate to me. Nowadays one needs to consider whether one uses a rare D/T combination which

might encourage people to visit a puzzle or multi cache without having solved the puzzle or having visited the stages just to gain the rare D/T combination.

The main reason behind powertrails are numbers too. In areas where powertrails show up, normal caches often get archived because the owners get annoyed by the many mass logs they get for their non mass caches. Some of them leave geocaching at all.

However, that being said, it in NO way affects how you choose which geocaches to find or hide. Only the departure of those who hid the ones that you like has affected your caching. Stats, streaks, types, icons - none of them should bother you as they aren't what you like. I understand the mass logs on caches NOT part of power trails, but I wouldn't archive mine solely because of mass logs. They found it as part of a power run and I would hope that there was something special enough about it that would invite a different log. If there was nothing special about the hide, then maybe it shouldn't have been hidden in the first place.

Those people who do not like walking and hiking and spending time in forests and on mountains and prefer to play computer games, are simply not the right audience to be convinced that hiking is beautiful. I'm also not the right audience for being convinved that playing computer games is enjoyable.

There is nothing bad about preferring playing computer games over hiking. It's just a different group of people and the types of caches they enjoy will differ.

So why can't they be convinced? What's stopping them from at least being introduced to something different? I see it as part of my "job" to introduce myself to new geocachers, regardless of how they were introduced to the game, and then hopefully spread the word about the many facets to geocaching, not just one specific type of hide. If it takes, great. If not, no big deal. They go their way and I go mine.

But as I said, of course this February experiment seen on its own will not effect my way of geocaching at all. I was just worried about the statement that visitors of lab caches help shape the future of geocaching, but of course I took this seriously and word by word.

They might influence the future of caching but perhaps they could influence it toward your preferred way of caching (and others do share your method of caching as well) or some sort of hybrid that incorporates both nature and technology.

2k · February 6, 2014

Missed the later post about possible ownership issues, but bureaucratic process or not, if you're concerned that caches will be archived or not hidden due to future laws/guidelines, be proactive and attempt to find out who the property owner is. Contact them, explain how it works, how they can have complete control over how, where, and when to allay any issues they might have so that they'll be more likely to be supportive of geocaching instead of not understanding it and putting out a blanket statement that severely limits or prohibits geocaching.

2.2k · February 6, 2014

The great thing about geocaching is that there are so many ways to play. People can choose what they wish to enjoy and it doesn't affect your enjoyment of the way you cache.

The downside is that the majority of cachers will seek the path of least resistance. If there comes opportunity to "hide" a cache that doesn't involve a container, then you will see the decline of physical containers. Look at how Micros have taken over since they typically involve less effort than a larger container.

5.7k · February 6, 2014

The great thing about geocaching is that there are so many ways to play. People can choose what they wish to enjoy and it doesn't affect your enjoyment of the way you cache.

The downside is that the majority of cachers will seek the path of least resistance. If there comes opportunity to "hide" a cache that doesn't involve a container, then you will see the decline of physical containers. Look at how Micros have taken over since they typically involve less effort than a larger container.

It's not a down side when land managers will allow a virtual to be listed where placing a physical geocache is already banned and and has been on the books for the last ten years. A virtual with a code phrase required to log, similar to the I <3 Lab caches gives us that enjoy virtuals a new freedom other than just Waymarking, and the majority will still hate these not real geocaches called virtuals and power trails will still take up space on my PQ's. :laughing:

6.8k · February 6, 2014

But as the hobby natural grows, and Groundspeak does not want to 1) cause problems with any authority (as that would shut down the activity) and 2) not show any disrespect for nature (a universal standard), I think it ultimately is up to the local region community, wherever in the world, to find a way to make the pastime compatible with local laws and regulations and ease the critics' minds. Don't blame Groundspeak for having to deal with the way any local community grows.

I'd say without Groundspeak the community would grow much slower and a single multi cache of 20km gets probably 20 visitors per 6 months while a series of 60 caches along the same trail get 200 and more visitors. The 20 would not cause an issue - the 200 cause an issue.

And without all the stat sites around that only makes sense with respect to gc.com this aggravates the problem considerably.

The issue does not come from the currently existing laws, but rather from the fact that if geocachers cause too much annoyment, then existing laws might be changed for which hiking clubs and others have fought for many, many years until they succeeded. Many property owners would prefer if they could forbid access to their forests, but they can't.

If geocaching booms too much, the harm caused can well have massive effects outside of geocaching.

The advantage of virtual caches in the way I'd like to see them also would be that if not counted for the find count, they would attract less visitors which once again is a good thing, regardless of whether a cache has permission or not.

If a different type of cacher starts to enjoy the game and that inadvertently brings forth standards that Groundspeak enforces everywhere else in the world that it's prompted to, well... it may be hard to accept, but Groundspeak won't be condoning breaking laws, and of course they don't want its players purposefully upsetting land owners/managers. They do their best to help and encourage its acceptance where it can, but ultimately it's up to the local community to make the positive first-hand impression of the hobby with the locals.

I guess you misunderstand what I tried to explain. It neither expected Groundspeak to break laws nor to annoy about land managers (which do not exist here except for national parks).

I wouldn't say that's an opinion limited to German speaking players.

I noticed however that the comments I encountered in three forums from German speaking countries were considerably more negative than the comments made for example here.

In any case, I thinks the average description length and complexity of caches descriptions will play a role whether cachers are disappointed with the lab cache submission form or think that it is ok.

Earlier you stated you believe with lab caches Groundspeak is continuing its push to cater to smartphone users.

Right, I used the term smartphone but actually I meant all kinds of mobile devices. I had mentioned that I do not care what device people use to navigate.

The same annoying 1000 character limit that was present in challenges, also arises now for lab caches. In both cases no html could be used, no pictures uploaded etc.

That makes pretty much clear that more complex descriptions and set ups are not welcome.

When they say "It's best to play on a mobile device", I take that to mean actually playing the lab with the mobile device in your hand is better than 1) playing on desktop, 2) printing it out, 3) better to have labs that require some kind of gps use.

Yes, I agree, but that's indeed the issue I have with this. All my caches are better be done by printing out the description. I would like to leave the choice whether a cache is better suited for a paperless approach or for using a printout to the hider.

But, if using a mobile device isn't working for you, it's still possible to do it by printing out the listing.

Yes, indeed, but that's not the point I was trying to make when I said that they have the target audience of smartphone users (or replace that by mobile device users if you want) in mind. What I meant was that they come along with restrictions from which the mobile device users will profit (who would want to read a 10000 character description on a small screen and deal with 30 and more variables?) and those who want to come up with a complex set up will suffer from.

The statement itself does seem trivial - I mean, geocaching is about using a mobile device (smartphone or handheld). So of course it's best to play on a mobile device.

It does not seem trivial to me. The typical longer multi cache in my area is best done by having a printout or some paper notes regardless of which device you use for navigating and regardless of whether your GPS-receiver can store cache descriptions.

(Do lab cache listings actually provide, say a .LOC file to make downloading GPS info easier? I haven't looked at a Lab listing yet)

There is a gpx file available but in case of special letters like accents and the German umlauts, they get lost in the gpx file.

Cezanne

Edited February 6, 2014 by cezanne

2k · February 6, 2014

The great thing about geocaching is that there are so many ways to play. People can choose what they wish to enjoy and it doesn't affect your enjoyment of the way you cache.

The downside is that the majority of cachers will seek the path of least resistance. If there comes opportunity to "hide" a cache that doesn't involve a container, then you will see the decline of physical containers. Look at how Micros have taken over since they typically involve less effort than a larger container.

I think the micro takeover is due to the fact that caching has migrated to a urban setting as quite a few of the really neat locations out in the parks, preserves and country are already taken by other cachers. If I can manage it, I'll always place a small or larger but there are times when that's not possible. I don't see that many micros placed in parks out away from the cities but do see more of them in city parks where non-cachers can spot them much easier if they're larger than a micro. Anything larger than a small doesn't work well in urban locations. I had a well camoed ammo can near the middle of the city on private property and it went missing after a couple of months. I'm guessing that a micro would have been less likely to be discovered.

2k · February 6, 2014

That makes pretty much clear that more complex descriptions and set ups are not welcome.

As smart phones get "smarter", they're basically becoming mini desktops. I use my GPSr to get me to an Earth Cache and then I use my smartphone to read the entire description and the logging requirements. My GPSr will do it okay but the html code makes for some rather interesting reading. I think that smartphones are actually easier when dealing with complex descriptions and set ups.

Yes, indeed, but that's not the point I was trying to make when I said that they have the target audience of smartphone users (or replace that by mobile device users if you want) in mind. What I meant was that they come along with restrictions from which the mobile device users will profit (who would want to read a 10000 character description on a small screen and deal with 30 and more variables?) and those who want to come up with a complex set up will suffer from.

I don't think that's going to happen. Those that wish to have a more complex and detailed description will be allowed to do so while others will continue putting out short and simple details. Some of the most detailed caches I've read the description and followed the instructions on my GPSr and some I've done on my phone. The longest cache description I've read was for a puzzle and I did it all on my phone. Turns out there wasn't really much to it but I read the whole thing before finding out what I needed to do. Phones have come a long way. With the entire cache description available to you on your phone (and images as well if needed), it makes sense that they're going after this market.

It does not seem trivial to me. The typical longer multi cache in my area is best done by having a printout or some paper notes regardless of which device you use for navigating and regardless of whether your GPS-receiver can store cache descriptions.

If you're talking about multis like your Quino's Relatives, I wouldn't bother with a printout or paper notes as I could access all the info from either my GPSr or my phone because that's how I've done it. I would use an app on my phone to store the needed information I got from each stage and then plug it all in at the end. On an aside (and off topic), I'm jealous that you have so many multis as close to you as you do and I'd LOVE to go after Old Stones. I've cleared out most of the multis in my area in a 50 mile radius.

4.6k · February 6, 2014

When they say "It's best to play on a mobile device", I take that to mean actually playing the lab with the mobile device in your hand is better than 1) playing on desktop, 2) printing it out, 3) better to have labs that require some kind of gps use.

Yes, I agree, but that's indeed the issue I have with this. All my caches are better be done by printing out the description. I would like to leave the choice whether a cache is better suited for a paperless approach or for using a printout to the hider.

Do you contribute financially to Groundspeak and thus the platform that it offers?

If not, do you think you have a strong claim to demand that they shape their platform to suit your needs?

I think you made a statement in an earlier post to the effect that having lots of premium members did not benefit the community (I'm sure I can find it if I bother to go and look for it).

Do you imagine that Groundspeak would be willing / able to perpetuate the provided platform in the absence of the income from all those premium members?

I'd say it's fairly clear that lots of premium members clearly DOES benefit the community - especially those who get to play for free on a platform paid for be those premium members.

9k · February 6, 2014

I'd say without Groundspeak the community would grow much slower and a single multi cache of 20km gets probably 20 visitors per 6 months while a series of 60 caches along the same trail get 200 and more visitors. The 20 would not cause an issue - the 200 cause an issue.

That's not Groundspeak. That's users doing what they love to do without the bounds Groundspeak had already set. In that regards, Groundspeak's rules had grown tighter to prevent abuse while remaining viable. Groundspeak didn't create powertrail, people did.

And without all the stat sites around that only makes sense with respect to gc.com this aggravates the problem considerably.

Again, not Groundspeak. If the information is available, people will analyze it. People did analyze it. It grew so popular in the hobby that Groundspeak provided an automated statistics page. PEOPLE are evolving the game. Groundspeak is trying new ideas - they're not always successful, but people evolve the game more than Groundspeak. And because of that Groundspeak responds, either adopting ideas, or restraining them before they run rampant.

If geocaching booms too much, the harm caused can well have massive effects outside of geocaching.

It's not an issue of geocaching 'booming too much', it's an issue of people not following rules and regulations, or using common sense. Groundspeak can only restrict so much. The rest is up to people who love the hobby to do what they can to make sure it remains viable in their region.

I guess you misunderstand what I tried to explain. It neither expected Groundspeak to break laws nor to annoy about land managers (which do not exist here except for national parks).

Land managers don't exist in Germany? Are you talking about public land, or including private land? Going back to your comment about churches and forest property - you said they own some of that land. Well then they have a right to ban geocaching on their property, even if it's publicly accessible. That's land management. If it's public property like city forest or trails, well then it's up to the community to ensure that newcomers don't abuse the freedom they have, and to use common sense in order to deter the city from declaring geocaching illegal or trespassing or whatever they do to hinder the activity there.

In any case, I thinks the average description length and complexity of caches descriptions will play a role whether cachers are disappointed with the lab cache submission form or think that it is ok.

Certainly, and that's fine

Right, I used the term smartphone but actually I meant all kinds of mobile devices. I had mentioned that I do not care what device people use to navigate.

So... not getting your complaint then. Really, "all kinds" are just smartphones and dedicated handhelds. So... they're focusing on..all of them. Which..is good, right?

The same annoying 1000 character limit that was present in challenges, also arises now for lab caches. In both cases no html could be used, no pictures uploaded etc.

That makes pretty much clear that more complex descriptions and set ups are not welcome.

"Not welcome" is loaded. In this case, more appropriate would be "disallowed", because yeah, it's an experiment. And so, if you don't think the 1000 character limit is a good idea, I'm sure your feedback is appreciated! (I'm confident they've noted the criticism, the numerous times it's been raised in this thread alone)

Yes, I agree, but that's indeed the issue I have with this. All my caches are better be done by printing out the description. I would like to leave the choice whether a cache is better suited for a paperless approach or for using a printout to the hider.

Ahhh, there's the rub!

See, geocaching is a mobile game. There is nothing stopping regular caches or lab caches from being printed out. But you don't like that the 1000 char limit on lab caches limits, say, the single resource description that someone could print out. Yet once again, there's no problem with creating an external source, a simple web page even, containing all the content you want!

And no, you don't need to pay for hosting or anything of that type. You can set up a free blog, for example, and put cache contents into an entry. Tumblr, Livejournal, heck even a free image service like imgur.com you can upload an image for free with all the text you want. There are loads of easily accessible options, which can even be used with standard caches. The only downside to a 1000 character limit in the lab cache description is that you can't put more than 1000 characters in the description itself. Yes, it's a valid concern and criticism. But it's not nearly as bad (imo) as you seem to be implying.

Yes, indeed, but that's not the point I was trying to make when I said that they have the target audience of smartphone users (or replace that by mobile device users if you want) in mind.

But which is it? Just smartphone users, or ... whatever else you consider a 'mobile device' capable of geocaching? (I have to presume you don't mean to include handhelds in that group because that just doesn't make sense with what you're saying). I think you're trying to classify the group of devices that can display content on a screen so you don't have to print content out.

Yet again, you can print content out. It's easier to use an electronic/mobile device - of course - but that does not mean they're explicitly targeting (with the intent to leave behind) non-mobile devices (excluding handhelds) with this cache setup.

Print the lab cache if you can't view it in the field, just as you would with a standard geocache.

What I meant was that they come along with restrictions from which the mobile device users will profit (who would want to read a 10000 character description on a small screen and deal with 30 and more variables?) and those who want to come up with a complex set up will suffer from.

I don't get this at all.

It does not seem trivial to me. The typical longer multi cache in my area is best done by having a printout or some paper notes regardless of which device you use for navigating and regardless of whether your GPS-receiver can store cache descriptions.

Sure.

You can still print out lab caches.

You can still create an external page or pages (with much more freedom now) with additional content.

You seem to not like that you're now forced to put content somewhere else, rather than in the provided description box.

It's more like, you want to put cache description in the "Short Description" field which is limited, but can't. But because they provide an unlimited (Long Description) field, now it's ok. But in Lab Caches, there's effectively only the limited Short Description, but there is no unlimited Long Description field, so what do you do? You're forced to put extra work in publishing the content somewhere else.

In that case, yes, I can understand the frustration, and I agree - which is why it's good feedback for Groundspeak which I'm sure they value.

There is a gpx file available but in case of special letters like accents and the German umlauts, they get lost in the gpx file.

A bug I'd be surprised if they're not actively trying to fix as we type here

The downside is that the majority of cachers will seek the path of least resistance. If there comes opportunity to "hide" a cache that doesn't involve a container, then you will see the decline of physical containers.

Like Earthcaches? The only still-publishable non-physical geocache listing that isn't a type of event, requiring all the same currently available geocache properties, with a few additional guidelines. Even though virtuals, webcams, and benchmarks still exist and remain popular non-physical-log findable geocaching entities (benchmarks being the only non-standard type)

But yes, and that's part of the experiment - can geocaching work and be fun and entertaining and creative even without a physical log sheet to sign?

Some people don't like that idea. Some love it.

Groundspeak gets to decide

9k · February 6, 2014

I don't think that's going to happen. Those that wish to have a more complex and detailed description will be allowed to do so while others will continue putting out short and simple details. Some of the most detailed caches I've read the description and followed the instructions on my GPSr and some I've done on my phone. The longest cache description I've read was for a puzzle and I did it all on my phone. Turns out there wasn't really much to it but I read the whole thing before finding out what I needed to do. Phones have come a long way. With the entire cache description available to you on your phone (and images as well if needed), it makes sense that they're going after this market.

Oh! This brought another point to mind.

Is it Groundspeak that's leading the way and pushing to support smartphones?

Or is that 1) people pushed the complexity of geocache listings so much that they became easier to work with on smartphones and 2) because smartphones have GPS capability people wanted to play the game on the device without having to buy an expensive handheld and 3) people just like new things, and the influx of new things had people asking/demanding that Groundspeak 'improve'...?

No, I don't think Groundspeak is the problem at all. I think, as usual, and as visible with most any update to the site, the community (whichever segment is more affected) is vocal and either pushes GS into making changes, or provide such great ideas that Groundspeak decides to implement them.

I think it's rare, at best, when Groundspeak on their own comes up with a new idea that's accepted by the majority that wasn't an idea in some way suggested first by community.

So, Groundspeak actually listens (gasp!) to its community in an effort to keep the game fun, and entertaining, to the community for whom it wants to keep loyal.

Lab Caches spawned from their attempts at doing so, both the successes and more significantly their failures (like geocaching challenges). Can they do wrong? Sure. But there are some people that in the grand scheme of things seem to think they can do no right! :huh:

6.8k · February 6, 2014

If not, do you think you have a strong claim to demand that they shape their platform to suit your needs?

Once again, I demanded nothing. I wrote that it seems to me that the lab cache experiment is targeted towards a certain target audience and explained what brought me to this belief.

I learnt many years ago that it is pretty unrealistic to hope that Groundspeak will ever make a change to their platform that pleases me (for example more than 10 years ago myself and cachers from many European countries asked Groundspeak to offer support for multilingual cache descriptions). I would have to deal with this situation also when I were a PM. It would give me no more right to expect anything from them. I do not complain about it - it is my decision to use gc.com. I'm here because there is no alternative for me and not because the site pleases me. I'm aware that Groundspeak's team is working hard and that they please many with what they do. I have learnt to accept that they do not please me. Pleasing me and pleasing at the same time the majority of cachers

is impossible anyway and I'm fully aware of that and I could not offer a system that pleases all groups of cachers at the same time. This does not keep me however from stating my opinion. Do you pay for every single statement/opinion etc you have? That might get quite expensive.

With regard to February lab caches your statement about PMs does not make much sense as only PM can create such lab caches. So I could not create such a cache anyway. When I explained why I see potential in virtual lab caches for my country, it was again not my personal needs.

When I mention the 1000 character restriction repeatedly I do so because this restriction is not appreciated by a number of those PM who already have come up with a lab cache but never ever will come to this forum. Have you already noticed that 95% of the users here are native speakers of English? Even those who are quite fluent in English, typically after some time lose the motivation to have to defend themselves too often due to the fact that there are enormous differences between e.g. geocaching in Germany and geocaching in the US.

I try to formulate my concerns in a respectful and polite manner. Have a look e.g. at this thread

http://forum.geoclub.de/viewtopic.php?f=115&t=73357

(everything is in German).

Then you might be able to see a difference to the style of my comments.

If you look at the multi caches in my area, you will maybe find 1 among 500 that has a description with less than 1000 characters. None of the birthday and other personal caches I'm familiar with at gc.com has a description that fits within 1000 characters and does not use pictures.

I will not comment on the rest of your post as I do not want to get that far off-topic. It is about our opinions about the lab cache experiment and not about my person.

I already offered you to reply to some aspects by private mail.

Cezanne

6.8k · February 6, 2014

Or is that 1) people pushed the complexity of geocache listings so much that they became easier to work with on smartphones and 2) because smartphones have GPS capability people wanted to play the game on the device without having to buy an expensive handheld and 3) people just like new things, and the influx of new things had people asking/demanding that Groundspeak 'improve'...?

No, I don't think Groundspeak is the problem at all.

Once again: Not every cache is for everyone. And by restricting the format of lab caches that can be created, it is indeed Groundspeak that creates the issue.

They could do the same as for conventional caches and leave the choice to the cache hider. Of course they can decide that they want to please one group more than another one. That's part of their role as company. From my personal point of view, I'm happy about every fan of m..... game like activities that leaves geocaching and moves over to the m.... site.

It is my personal conjecture that if Groundspeak were to set up its cache site nowadays, they would not any longer allow for cache descriptions of unrestricted length. Of course this is just my speculation of which I have no proof.

Cezanne

Edited February 6, 2014 by cezanne

4.6k · February 6, 2014

I will not comment on the rest of your post as I do not want to get that far off-topic. It is about our opinions about the lab cache experiment and not about my person.

I already offered you to reply to some aspects by private mail.

None of my post is off topic.

None of my post is personal.

As I said earlier - you stated in this thread that high numbers of premium members does not benefit the community - and I was responding to that by demonstrating how lots of premium members does benefit the community - by keeping the lights on at Groundspeak and allowing those people who do not contribute financially to access to most of the features for free.

Given that my post is a response to your earlier post - my post being off topic would depend on your own post being off topic in the first place. You made your original post in this thread in the full knowledge that the thread subject was lab caches - so must have believed that your comment was on topic. This means of course that contextual responses to your posts are also on topic.

I've no desire to engage in a private email conversation with you - I prefer to take part in this thread, just like you.

2.4k · February 6, 2014

My, oh my - all this back and forth, concern, and even angst over a month-long, temporary experiment!

Where's that signature line about a nice steak and a glass of bourbon, or something like that? Methinks some people need to figure out if something that will be over in 3 weeks and one day is worth so much investment.

February 6, 2014

Do I get notified when it gets logged?
Good question. I was wondering the same thing.

No. But you'll know who logged it when you go here and click "Get Started" button.

6.8k · February 6, 2014

I've no desire to engage in a private email conversation with you - I prefer to take part in this thread, just like you.

That's perfectly fine and I did not send you anything without having your prior ok. Actually, some parts of what we both wrote were at least at the border of being off-topic or where just a conversation between the two of us and that was the reason why I offered to reply to some of your statements privately. Personally I do not mind at all if a thread goes off-topic, but the moderators and the forum guidelines see it differently.

4.6k · February 6, 2014

Personally I do not mind at all if a thread goes off-topic, but the moderators and the forum guidelines see it differently.

Again - the discussion was contextual and on topic - even if you refuse to accept it. I responded to your comments with a counter-example.

Forums are for dialogue not monologue.

6.8k · February 6, 2014

My, oh my - all this back and forth, concern, and even angst over a month-long, temporary experiment!

Most of the lengthy discussions have in mind that there could be further such experiments or the cache type even could become an integral part of geocaching.com.

I'm fully aware that many of those who just want to take part in the February experiment to please a friend or beloved person, will not be interested into this general and partly rather philosophical discussion, but no one forces them to take part in it.

6.8k · February 6, 2014

Again - the discussion was contextual and on topic - even if you refuse to accept it. I responded to your comments with a counter-example.

I have no preference of on-topic over off-topic and I have no issue with continuing our discussion here. I just want to keep this thread from getting locked.

9k · February 6, 2014

Once again: Not every cache is for everyone. And by restricting the format of lab caches that can be created, it is indeed Groundspeak that creates the issue.

I seriously just don't get what you're saying. I understand, I just don't get it. Lab Caches aren't being restricted. The only technical restriction is the number of characters you can put in the description box. Compared to standard caches, it's a blank slate! I can't grasp how you think lab caches are possibly restrictive, considering you have complete freedom by providing content off-site, beyond the description box.

And see above why I understand a reasoning as to why one might not like the 1000 character limit. But to say Lab Caches are restrictive, let alone catering to smartphone users... *shakes head*

It is my personal conjecture that if Groundspeak were to set up its cache site nowadays, they would not any longer allow for cache descriptions of unrestricted length. Of course this is just my speculation of which I have no proof.

Most definitely personal conjecture, and I can't even fathom why that would be the case. But yes, it's pure speculation and your opinion. And also, the future of standard geocaches is not really relevant to this discussion.

I have no preference of on-topic over off-topic and I have no issue with continuing our discussion here. I just want to keep this thread from getting locked.

Even more irrelevant to this discussion.

How 'bout let's everyone stop talking about talking, and just talk about lab caches

6.8k · February 6, 2014

The only technical restriction is the number of characters you can put in the description box.

No, there are other technical restrictions too, no picture upload, only ASCII works, special characters do not get transfered into the GPX file etc

While this might not a be big issue for the February experiment as you might argue that one mail everything to the recipient of the cache directly, I obtained the impression

that these kind of restrictions are going to stay. They also were present for the challenges which were around for a number of months.

In my opinion, the length restriction is a serious issue for any future lab cache experiment that would allow to set up lab caches for more than a single person and so I think that this is an important issue to address and it also fits to the key topic of this thread.

I always thought of the service of Groundspeak as mainly a service to provide webspace and a database for the storage of cache descriptions and logs and not as a collection of links to other sources outside of Groundspeak.

And also, the future of standard geocaches is not really relevant to this discussion.

Are you sure? Groundspeak promotes this experiment as helping to shape the future of geocaching. If one takes this seriously, then .....

Cezanne

Edited February 7, 2014 by cezanne

9k · February 7, 2014

The only technical restriction is the number of characters you can put in the description box.

No, there are other technical restrictions too, no picture upload, only ASCII works, special characters do not get transfered into the GPX file etc

Ok, sure, if it bothers you that those options are not natively available when creating a lab cache listing, then I'm confident Groundspeak would value that feedback.

I obtained the impression that these kind of restrictions are going to stay.

I would suggest to you not to jump to that conclusion. Otherwise, what is the point of experimenting?

IF it turns out that feedback is positive, then it might happen. But to presume already this is the way it's going to go is, well, presumptuous and could even be insulting to them, the ones who are looking for constructive criticism rather than presumptions about their motivations and possible existence of hidden agendas ('down with handhelds!').

Anyway, point being, if you have concerns, raise them. But don't presume things about Groundspeak's motivations; that's not relevant.

I always thought of the service of Groundspeak as mainly a service to provide webspace and a database for the storage of cache descriptions and logs and not as a collection of links to other sources outside of Groundspeak.

I wasn't around when they began, but I'm guessing image uploading was not an initial option in the interface, but was added when they had the resources and people suggested that it would make creating listings easier and quicker and more reliable (than hoping external sources, not as readily available back then, would always remain accessible). Now, external resources are a-plenty. It's generally not as big of a deal. But if you you want those such options to stick around, then sure, raise some noise. But again, don't presume Groundspeak is out to make the game worse for you (the 'future' of geocaching).

Are you sure? Groundspeak promotes this experiment as helping to shape the future of geocaching. If one takes this seriously, then .....

There's a difference between taking the discussion seriously and being constructively critical about an idea, and hurling presumptuous claims against Groundspeak because the idea isn't in the direction you'd like to see the "future of geocaching" take.

So no, the future of geocaching, itself, is irrelevant to offering feedback about your experience with lab caches or this particular experiment.

Ideally, see what type of experience they're trying to encourage in the grander scheme of things, and critique how this experiment either fits in with that, or doesn't; how it works, or fails; ideas to make it better, or bug reports of things that seem broken.

What Groundspeak is doing to the hobby and where it's going - that's a discussion for a different thread.

4.6k · February 7, 2014

Again - the discussion was contextual and on topic - even if you refuse to accept it. I responded to your comments with a counter-example.

I have no preference of on-topic over off-topic and I have no issue with continuing our discussion here. I just want to keep this thread from getting locked.

I think we will be OK - given that your own posts have diverted quite far from the core subject and the thread hasn't been locked yet

4.6k · February 7, 2014

I always thought of the service of Groundspeak as mainly a service to provide webspace and a database for the storage of cache descriptions and logs and not as a collection of links to other sources outside of Groundspeak.

Another good example of why having lots of fee-paying premium members benefits the community as a whole

Webspace and storage costs money - and that money has to come from somewhere. It doesn't magically appear in GS's bank account :blink:

Additionaly - I know for a fact that the type of highly available, fault tolerant platform in use by GS costs LOTS of money.

More premium members = more money = continuation and possibly enhancement of said platform - the type of platform you yourself would want to use.

If the ratio of non-paying members becomes too great GS might struggle to perpetuate the platform at the current level of performance / functionality

6.8k · February 7, 2014

No, there are other technical restrictions too, no picture upload, only ASCII works, special characters do not get transfered into the GPX file etc

Ok, sure, if it bothers you that those options are not natively available when creating a lab cache listing, then I'm confident Groundspeak would value that feedback.

The same feedback has been offered by many people for the challenges and nothing happened at all.

Regarding the possible addition of online logs to lab caches there has been a reply saying that logs might be added, but with respect to the restrictions of the lab cache form, no such reply exists and also the reply I obtained in the blog comment section from Jeremy was just that lab caches are different to normal caches and have a different form.

Ideally, see what type of experience they're trying to encourage in the grander scheme of things, and critique how this experiment either fits in with that, or doesn't; how it works, or fails; ideas to make it better, or bug reports of things that seem broken.

What Groundspeak is doing to the hobby and where it's going - that's a discussion for a different thread.

Actually, I do not understand this thread as a thread uniquely about experiences with I <3 lab caches as the thread has been opened up many days before the launch of the February experiment. I always looked at this thread as a discussion about the option for PMs to place lab caches (see the thread title) and the February experiment as an abstract concept and not only its concrete implementation. If we talk about this general topic, then the issue how the experiment is promoted also plays a role and then the connection to the "future of geocaching" shows up. In my opinion, the promoting of the experiment with respect to the future of geocaching is what is very confusing and indimitating for people like me (if I take it seriously what I did).

The development of geocaching comes in because I personally would see a great potential for another type of lab caches that PMs (or also basic members - that's not the issue here) could be able to create in the future. These lab caches should be directed to many cachers and should be able to found more than once and should allow for something that one could do with the old virtuals (to which I'm passionately attached).

Does it now make sense why I talked about the local development and about issues like the future of geocaching? I never ever thought that the February experiment in itself will have essential impacts on the future or on the present of geocaching.

I never ever would have raised most of the issues I talked about in a thread named "Your experiences and feedback with respect to I <3 ... lab caches". I think the unfortunate thing is the mixed audience in this thread. Not everyone wants to talk about the same things.

As the style people come up with comments, problem reports etc is regarded, cultural differences play a big role. This forum is dominated by the North American and UK style which is much more indirect than say the Central European style. What is regarded as an insult also depends a lot on where someone comes from.

I'm sure that what many people in Germany and Austria thought that when they tried to submit a lab cache is that the form sucks and that would be a way they would voice their feedback locally. They would not reformulate this in a way like people from the US definitely would do.

Cezanne

Edited February 7, 2014 by cezanne

4.6k · February 7, 2014

As the style people come up with comments, problem reports etc is regarded, cultural differences play a big role. This forum is dominated by the North American and UK style which is much more indirect than say the Central European style. What is regarded as an insult also depends a lot on where someone comes from.

I'm sure that what many people in Germany and Austria thought that when they tried to submit a lab cache is that the form sucks and that would be a way they would voice their feedback locally. They would not reformulate this in a way like people from the US definitely would do.

Only just seen this edit - almost wasted a perfectly good mouthful of coffee :lol:

I think there are some very direct communicators here on these forums - from both the US and the UK. I would even go so far as to include myself in that bracket.

There are some posters though who really do rely on vague / undefined language and meaning, and struggle to offer simple, direct answers to simple, direct questions

I was thinking about the lab cache submission form this morning while shaving - the whole lab-cache interface to be honest and I could see more than one very good reason why Groundspeak would use such a simple, basic platform - and I concluded that if any of my theories were correct that they had done exactly the right thing

Taking things from a purely mercenary point of view.

As a paying, premium member I hope that Groundspeak will use the money I pay them each year wisely - that they will invest it in things which will allow them to operate, maintain and enhance the services they provide for my benefit - I'm greedy like that.

Being realistic though I fully expect that they will aim to operate, maintain and enhance the services they provide for the benefit of all - including themselves - they have to make a living after all And I'm with that.

And being even more realistic I expect they will aim to operate, maintain and enhance the services they provide for the majority - in line with the wishes of the majority of their users - even including those who don't directly contribute financially.

Now - wanting to see Groundspeak use all those premium member fees wisely - and probably not being alone in that - I would like to hope that they won't spend lots of money on things which ultimately come to nothing - failed experiments if you like - and I reckon they are probably aware of this and take this view seriously.

So they decide that when they are going to conduct an experiment - such as this recent lab cache experiment - they will invest only enough in that experiment to provide a very basic skeletal prototype system. That way, if things don't work out - they didn't blow a whole load of $$$ on it.

And I think that's a very, very good way of carrying out this type of experimentation

6.8k · February 7, 2014

I think there are some very direct communicators here on these forums - from both the US and the UK. I would even go so far as to include myself in that bracket.

But not when compared to the common style say e.g. in German (geocaching) forums.

And being even more realistic I expect they will aim to operate, maintain and enhance the services they provide for the majority - in line with the wishes of the majority of their users - even including those who don't directly contribute financially.

Actually, I think that some of their recent experiments like challenges and also the lab caches are not in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their paying customers.

Have a look for example at the predominantly negative opinions of German, Austria and Czech cachers on these matters (in these areas geocaching is quite popular and they earn quite some share of their income from German cachers). They earn more from the EU customers than from their other customers.

So they decide that when they are going to conduct an experiment - such as this recent lab cache experiment - they will invest only enough in that experiment to provide a very basic skeletal prototype system. That way, if things don't work out - they didn't blow a whole load of $$$ on it.

I do not think that in 2014 allowing html, taking care of letters which play an important role in many European languages and not restricting to 1000 characters creates extra cost.

I rather think that with setups like the chosen one, they diminish the chances of a success even further.

It appears to me that I do not have a good feeling for the geocaching scene in continental Europe.

These customers are much harder to please for Groundspeak than a large group of the North American customers.

Cezanne

Edited February 7, 2014 by cezanne

4.6k · February 7, 2014

I think there are some very direct communicators here on these forums - from both the US and the UK. I would even go so far as to include myself in that bracket.

But not when compared to the common style say e.g. in German (geocaching) forums.

I cannot comment - I do not frequent such forums but if the example you quoted earlier was typical - I'd describe that not as direct but just plain rude and unhelpful.

And being even more realistic I expect they will aim to operate, maintain and enhance the services they provide for the majority - in line with the wishes of the majority of their users - even including those who don't directly contribute financially.

Actually, I think that some of their recent experiments like challenges and also the lab caches are not in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their paying customers.

And I don't think you speak for the majority of their paying customers. You of course may think different.

Have a look for example at the predominantly negative opinions of German, Austria and Czech cachers on these matters (in these areas geocaching is quite popular and they earn quite some share of their income from German cachers). They earn more from the EU customers than from their other customers.

I've no desire to look at the predominantly negative opinions of the German, Austria(n) and Czech cachers - that doesn't sound like fun at all. In fact it sounds rather repetitive and dull. If they are predominantly negative I'd have to wonder why those people bother with caching in the first place - why do something you don't like and then waste even more time complaining about how much you don't like it?

I imagine that if all those unhappy PAYING EU customers vote with their wallets that Groundspeak will have to take notice.

Pretty sure the UK is in the EU - and I vote with my wallet - by handing over the paltry sum of money Groundspeak asks each year.

So they decide that when they are going to conduct an experiment - such as this recent lab cache experiment - they will invest only enough in that experiment to provide a very basic skeletal prototype system. That way, if things don't work out - they didn't blow a whole load of $$$ on it.

I do not think that in 2014 allowing html, taking care of letters which play an important role in many European languages and not restricting to 1000 characters creates extra cost.

I rather think that with setups like the chosen one, they diminish the chances of a success even further.

It appears to me that I do not have a good feeling for the geocaching scene in continental Europe.

These customers are much harder to please for Groundspeak than a large group of the North American customers.

Indeed - but you seem to have a fundamental inability to separate the idea of a prototype interface for the purposes of a quick-and-dirty experiment from the larger production interface that we all use for our day-to-day caching needs.

Once you realise they are very different tools for very different purposes you'll realise there's nothing to be concerned about.

2.7k · February 7, 2014

I find it amusingly interesting that most of the posts over the last few pages of this thread are from a cacher who cannot hide a cache of the type which is the topic of this thread. The back-and-forth between him and a couple of others has added considerable volume to the thread, but I'm not sure if anything substantive to the topic is there.

1.8k · February 7, 2014

I find it amusingly interesting that most of the posts over the last few pages of this thread are from a cacher who cannot hide a cache of the type which is the topic of this thread. The back-and-forth between him and a couple of others has added considerable volume to the thread, but I'm not sure if anything substantive to the topic is there.

Her?

6.8k · February 7, 2014

I've no desire to look at the predominantly negative opinions of the German, Austria(n) and Czech cachers - that doesn't sound like fun at all. In fact it sounds rather repetitive and dull. If they are predominantly negative I'd have to wonder why those people bother with caching in the first place - why do something you don't like and then waste even more time complaining about how much you don't like it?

I did not say that they do not like to go caching. One of the issues with challenges and the I <3 lab cache experiment many appear to have is that they do not think that's geocaching. Among the remaining ones many take an issue with the fact that the I <3 caches are private caches and can only be found by a single cacher while those cachers think that geocaching is a community type of activity.

I imagine that if all those unhappy PAYING EU customers vote with their wallets that Groundspeak will have to take notice.

Most cachers pay the PM fee because they got used to PQs, ignore lists etc.

Pretty sure the UK is in the EU - and I vote with my wallet - by handing over the paltry sum of money Groundspeak asks each year.

Sure the UK is in the EU, but the preferences and needs of UK cachers are more similar to the preferences of North American cachers than e.g. the preferences of German cachers are to the preferences of North American cachers.

Indeed - but you seem to have a fundamental inability to separate the idea of a prototype interface for the purposes of a quick-and-dirty experiment from the larger production interface that we all use for our day-to-day caching needs.

I can separate between the two, but believe me offering html and more than 1000 characters is quick and dirty in 2014. I would expect any high school student to come up with such a prototype in 10 minutes. I find the theory that they want to comply with the statement "is best played with mobile devices" much more convincing than the prototype theory.

Cezanne

Edited February 7, 2014 by cezanne

6.8k · February 7, 2014

I find it amusingly interesting that most of the posts over the last few pages of this thread are from a cacher who cannot hide a cache of the type which is the topic of this thread.

Have you realized that many cachers who have no cache hides take part in geocaching discussions? While I have hidden some caches and helped with hiding caches that are not owned by me, I definitely spend more time with searching caches and this will be true for most cachers.

The way lab caches are set up will influence how many of them exist in a certain area and how they will look like and whether I will like to go for them. So I cannot see a reason why I should a priori have no interest into the topic.

Cezanne

1.8k · February 7, 2014

I find it amusingly interesting that most of the posts over the last few pages of this thread are from a cacher who cannot hide a cache of the type which is the topic of this thread.

Have you realized that many cachers who have no cache hides take part in geocaching discussions? While I have hidden some caches and helped with hiding caches that are not owned by me, I definitely spend more time with searching caches and this will be true for most cachers.

The way lab caches are set up will influence how many of them exist in a certain area and how they will look like and whether I will like to go for them. So I cannot see a reason why I should a priori have no interest into the topic.

Cezanne

It's not about hiding caches, per se. But you must be a PM to hide a lab cache.

Soi t would be the same thing as being opposed to us asking for a PQ limit change, or being angry about the 'caches along a route' feature.

If you are not a PM, then there's even MORE reason to take the 'ignore-it-if-you-don't-like-it" advice.

4.6k · February 7, 2014

I did not say that they do not like to go caching.

I never said that you did - but if your claim that the forums are predominantly negative is anything to go by that would suggest that they don't enjoy geocaching in its current form. Personally I generally avoid things I don't enjoy and seek out things I do enjoy - rather than repeatedly making negative forum posts about them, Maybe that's just me.

One of the issues with challenges and the I <3 lab cache experiment many appear to have is that they do not think that's geocaching.

They? Many? Who is this undefined they? US cachers? EU cachers? UK cachers? Groundspeak? And just how many are there exactly? Do you speak for all of them?

Most cachers pay the PM fee because they got used to PQs, ignore lists etc.

Do they? How do you know?

Sure the UK is in the EU, but the preferences and needs of UK cachers are more similar to the preferences of North American cachers than e.g. the preferences of German cachers are to the preferences of North American cachers.

You seem to be something of an expert on the preferences of other cachers from different parts of the world. Extensive research?

I can separate between the two, but believe me offering html and more than 1000 characters is quick and dirty in 2014. I would expect any high school student to come up with such a prototype in 10 minutes. I find the theory that they want to comply with the statement "is best played with mobile devices" much more convincing than the prototype theory.

It's at this point that I start to think you didn't take on board a single point I tried to make.

Oh well.

9k · February 7, 2014

It's at this point that I start to think you didn't take on board a single point I tried to make.

Oh well.

You've made them. We've made them. I've given up re-making them.

7.3k · February 7, 2014

Did Jayme H stop wasting her time reading this thread back on page 6?

:laughing:

B.

6.8k · February 8, 2014

I never said that you did - but if your claim that the forums are predominantly negative is anything to go by that would suggest that they don't enjoy geocaching in its current form.

The forum posts about challenges and now about the I <3 lab caches are predominantly negative in several of the forums I looked at.

I'm sorry if my statement made you believe that I refer to all topics in those forums.

One of the issues with challenges and the I <3 lab cache experiment many appear to have is that they do not think that's geocaching.

They? Many? Who is this undefined they? US cachers? EU cachers? UK cachers? Groundspeak? And just how many are there exactly? Do you speak for all of them?

The writers in the forums I looked at. I provided one link to the lab cache discussion in the German geoclub.de forum further above and I could provide links to other threads. I could also provide you with tons of links about forum threads dealing with challenges (but they do not exist any longer anyway).

I do not speak for these people. I just thought that it might be of interest that the picture one gets from looking at this thread and this part of the forum in general with respect to the opinions of cachers about lab caches will be biased.

For example, it is interesting that the concerns raised in this thread about putting nails into trees, burying containers etc just came up here and in none of the European forums I looked at (I did not look at UK forums - all forums I looked are based on languages other than English).

Most cachers pay the PM fee because they got used to PQs, ignore lists etc.

Do they? How do you know?

At least most cachers who take part in surveys about their reasons that I have come across over the years and nearly all cachers I have met or talked to by e-mail. (The issue comes up quite often as among the latter group many are disappointed about certain decisions of Groundspeak but still decided to stay PMs because of the mentioned reasons.)

Sure the UK is in the EU, but the preferences and needs of UK cachers are more similar to the preferences of North American cachers than e.g. the preferences of German cachers are to the preferences of North American cachers.

You seem to be something of an expert on the preferences of other cachers from different parts of the world. Extensive research?

No, I'm not an expert, but the differences between the way caching is undertaken in different parts of the world is something which fascinates me since I started geocaching in 2002. There are a number of geocaching forums from different countries (and in different languages) I happen to visit with varying frequences. Moreover, there are sites like project-gc and many national stat sites which provide hard facts and data, e.g. about the distribution of the cache types in different countries. One can also look at the profile of some randomly selected cachers in a number of countries and have a look at the split up in their finds.

There are many more ways to come up with the conclusion that caching preferences and styles vary a lot, to a lesser extent also with respect to regions within the same country (even if the country is small).

One of my dreams (but one that will never come true) would be a European geocaching forum in English, but frequented regularly by cachers from many different countries. It would help to understand each other better and it also might help to demonstrate the

differences I talked about to a wider audience.

It could still be that your impression would differ from mine, but until the point where you have had a look at some geocaching forums in other countries (not the UK and not in North America), it will be hard for me to convince you about there are differences in the opinions about lab caches and almost all ideas Groundspeak came up within the last years that are country dependent.

It's at this point that I start to think you didn't take on board a single point I tried to make.

I guess we will have to agree that we disagree. My claim is that offering a form that allows html and more than 1000 characters does not amount in higher costs and in a higher effort than coming up with what exists right now. The idea behind a prototype is to see first experimental results quickly without too high investments. It does not seem to make sense to make the prototype weaker than is possible with the same investment as this will influence the evaluation results (apart from your argument about fostering creativity which is not something we could argue about as it always will be based on subjective components).

I think our major point of disagreement is that you did not think that in the case of lab caches the proposed prototype does not essentially influence the evaluation results, but I could be wrong of course.

Cezanne

6.8k · February 8, 2014

Did Jayme H stop wasting her time reading this thread back on page 6?

I think there should have been a separate thread for questions (to Groundspeak) about lab caches.

This thread somehow is like discussing about all aspects of mystery caches in only a single forum thread.

Regardless of the participants this can't work very well in my opinion.

I can understand very well that not only Jayme H, but also all the other readers who are just interested in

the answers to concrete questions about the February lab cache experiment and not in discussions about

concerns, the potential of lab caches and philosophical issues will get tired and will consider this thread

as a waste of their time.

On the other hand, there should be a space for such discussions too. A split into more than one thread would have helped to

allow everyone to filter out easily what one is not interested into.

February 8, 2014

I "gave" my lab cache have you? <3 I guess the only way to give Groundspeak feedback on the experiment is through the forums. I like the ability to have "virtual" logging. If/when this type of cache ever goes "production" they'll have to make them count/work like traditionals and virtuals if they want them to be used a lot. Functioning like a normal cache would be nice - like me getting and email when it is logged, the "finder" being about to post an internet log about their experience etc. From the forums you get it that this new type of geocache isn't for everyone. Which i think is OK. Some folks don't like puzzles, or PnG, or terrain 5's, or trees, benchmarks, or waymarks, or events. So SOMETHING for EVERYONE - just not EVERYTHING to EVERYONE.

3.1k · February 8, 2014

From the forums you get it that this new type of geocache isn't for everyone. Which i think is OK. Some folks don't like puzzles, or PnG, or terrain 5's, or trees, benchmarks, or waymarks, or events. So SOMETHING for EVERYONE - just not EVERYTHING to EVERYONE.

I didn't see many forum posts that were opposed to the idea of lab caches. What I did see were several posts that expressed concerns about different aspects of lab caches and opinions about how they might be improved. I believe that soliciting such suggestions was one of the purposes of this lab cache experiment.

February 9, 2014

I was just thinking of how to hide my first lab cache and I got a really good Idea in my head! and now I like the idea so much that if it is not implemented I will be sad! Seeing as this is its new type of geocache, separate from the rest, I figure this method could work. I feel like when creating a lab cache you can have the OPTION to have "virtual" stages for your cache. What I mean is you can set a location to start, once you arrive at GZ, on your phone, a message will appear with your instructions on where to go next. and once you go to the next area another message will appear on your phone and perhaps get the information to the final where the code could be hidden. I know that not everyone has a smart phone, but like I said it could be an option. Having virtual stages makes more sense than having to go around and hide physical stages for your multi stage cache for just one person. I also believe that you should be able to pick how many people can find your lab cache up to a certain limit. Would be cool if it could be found for the first 5 people. Also to avoid having to many of these on the map I think you could limit it for example not being able to hide another one until your last one is completed or a certain amount each month etc... Being able to have virtual stages would allow you to hide caches in locations that are of high traffic without looking suspicious, and will also not mess with other caches nearby as there is not a physical cache to find. Just think of the possibilities!

*Edit* the key here is to limit how many you can hide, so that they are not everywhere on the map. I'm sure Groundspeak could find a suitable number

Edited February 9, 2014 by Turtle_Sask

1.3k · February 9, 2014

I was just thinking of how to hide my first lab cache and I got a really good Idea in my head! and now I like the idea so much that if it is not implemented I will be sad! Seeing as this is its new type of geocache, separate from the rest, I figure this method could work. I feel like when creating a lab cache you can have the OPTION to have "virtual" stages for your cache. What I mean is you can set a location to start, once you arrive at GZ, on your phone, a message will appear with your instructions on where to go next. and once you go to the next area another message will appear on your phone and perhaps get the information to the final where the code could be hidden. I know that not everyone has a smart phone, but like I said it could be an option.

Being able to have virtual stages would allow you to hide caches in locations that are of high traffic without looking suspicious, and will also not mess with other caches nearby as there is not a physical cache to find. Just think of the possibilities!

This is basically how Wherigo's work, so if lab caches do not develop into anything, you could create a Wherigo. The big difference is that to list a Wherigo on geocaching.com, you have to have a physical container at the end with a logbook.

5.7k · February 9, 2014

I was just thinking of how to hide my first lab cache and I got a really good Idea in my head! and now I like the idea so much that if it is not implemented I will be sad! Seeing as this is its new type of geocache, separate from the rest, I figure this method could work. I feel like when creating a lab cache you can have the OPTION to have "virtual" stages for your cache. What I mean is you can set a location to start, once you arrive at GZ, on your phone, a message will appear with your instructions on where to go next. and once you go to the next area another message will appear on your phone and perhaps get the information to the final where the code could be hidden. I know that not everyone has a smart phone, but like I said it could be an option.

Being able to have virtual stages would allow you to hide caches in locations that are of high traffic without looking suspicious, and will also not mess with other caches nearby as there is not a physical cache to find. Just think of the possibilities!

This is basically how Wherigo's work, so if lab caches do not develop into anything, you could create a Wherigo. The big difference is that to list a Wherigo on geocaching.com, you have to have a physical container at the end with a logbook.

You don't just go out with a common GPS unit and create or find a Wherigo. Big difference. I could develop a I <3 Lab cache with Virtual stages and a final with a log book to sign that you don't need anything special to find.

February 9, 2014

I was just thinking of how to hide my first lab cache and I got a really good Idea in my head! and now I like the idea so much that if it is not implemented I will be sad! Seeing as this is its new type of geocache, separate from the rest, I figure this method could work. I feel like when creating a lab cache you can have the OPTION to have "virtual" stages for your cache. What I mean is you can set a location to start, once you arrive at GZ, on your phone, a message will appear with your instructions on where to go next. and once you go to the next area another message will appear on your phone and perhaps get the information to the final where the code could be hidden. I know that not everyone has a smart phone, but like I said it could be an option.

Being able to have virtual stages would allow you to hide caches in locations that are of high traffic without looking suspicious, and will also not mess with other caches nearby as there is not a physical cache to find. Just think of the possibilities!

This is basically how Wherigo's work, so if lab caches do not develop into anything, you could create a Wherigo. The big difference is that to list a Wherigo on geocaching.com, you have to have a physical container at the end with a logbook.

You don't just go out with a common GPS unit and create or find a Wherigo. Big difference. I could develop a I <3 Lab cache with Virtual stages and a final with a log book to sign that you don't need anything special to find.

Maybe I should have also explained what im picturing in my head as virtual stages. Just picture yourself in the app and you are at the first stage of the cache. you click on the cache name and you are now on the lab cache page. there could be a button "Clue 1, or clue, or stage" etc... that is not highlighted, and once you are within 20 meters of the stage that button becomes highlighted or filled with color indicating that you can now click it. once clicked a new message will pop up on your screen with new information for the next stage and that now highlighted button becomes blank again until your smartphone is within 20 meters of the next virtual stage. I think the final could be a physical logbook with the code that you need or it could be virtual with the code in the final code. Just think you could make some cool puzzles to find the next stage and you would know that the geocacher is in the right spot in order to get the clue. Virtual letterboxing would be cool. Just think get to a specific spot and you are then able to click on that button and your letterboxing clues appear only in that one spot!

Place your own Lab Cache!?!?!

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment