Bring back Locationless caches?

[+cerberus1]

Localities.

[+Manville Possum]

these fake Lab cache thingys

 

Interesting. The thing about a Lab cache is that it can be anything, anything that lets the seeker end up in possession of a codeword to log the find.

 

My observation is that the first time a Mega event has the opportunity to have labs, they don't quite grasp this notion - and they tend to place

temp trads.

 

 

I have logged temp trads and played games to get the code words to log lab caches. Also seems it is common that the code words get passed around at Mega events, the reason I used the word fake. I thought the geocaching challenge listings were fun if done correctly. Many of mine required posting a photo at the listed coordinates, web cams, and a few of our EarthCaches. No silly kiss a frog stuff, except one post your picture with a local at a hillbilly hangout.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This is why Geocaching Challenges were very cool. With the thumbs up/thumbs down feature, the better (in theory) waterfalls would float up to the top and the poorer one would sink to the bottom.

I know you could "like" particular Geocaching Challenges, but I don't remember having the ability to "like" individual finds within those challenges. I could be wrong about that, though.

 

No, you're right. The suggestion actually got "we'll consider this enhancement" from one of the (and one with some clout) lackeys. The point was to encourage completing the challenge in a way that stood out from others that just phoned it in.

[Mr.Yuck]

We did a few and I believe most were restricted to one per cacher.

As Mr. Yuck said, the waterfall one had two.

CJ (my other 2/3rds) wanted only one each anyway, as at the time we weren't sure if it would interfere with our "distinct" finds (she was one concerned with stats).

 

Here now is the waterfall locationless The restriction of only being able to log it twice was added later (like I say, November 21st, but the guy never said what year that was). It's horrifically painful to scroll through the logs, but once I got to 2003, I saw two people who logged it at least 10 times apiece for different waterfalls. There were probably more examples, but I was tired of scrolling.

 

However, in the end, I agree with the point made that most of them had a "one log per cacher and once an object is used, it cannot be used by another cacher" restriction.

[team tisri]

One of the things I enjoy about caching is doing it with friends. It doesn't seem to make sense to me to have only one cacher to be able to log a site. That completely goes against the group going caching together theme.

 

I'm all in favour of temporary locationless caches but not with a single finder approach.

 

"Once a site is logged, it cannot be used again" restrictions were imposed by LC owners if they choose to. Some had it, some didn't. For example, I know you could run out and log as many waterfalls as your heart desired. Kinda cheesy I know, but you could. Should Groundspeak accept the OP's proposal, they'd probably have to rule out any with those restrictions.

 

By the way, the moratorium on new LC's was enacted way back in February, 2003 (before I started even!!) and only 382 had been created. As documented on this bookmark list. Keep in mind though, it was created by an early fan of Waymarking, so it attempts to steer you in that direction. Not unlike some of the old-timers in this thread. Except that MPH is not an old-timer.

 

I'd go for an option whereby once a site was logged it could only be used for a further 48 hours or some such. It would mean that going out with a group didn't result in wondering who got to claim it, and if you were on your way there but someone else got there first it wouldn't be a question of who happened to log it first.

 

I logged a couple of locationless caches in quiet parts of rural PA and found a couple of other sites nobody had used before in central London. If the quest is to "find a waterfall" it's a bit dull if everybody digs out an old holiday snap of the Niagara Falls but interesting to see some of the other waterfalls people use once the obvious ones are taken.

[+geodarts]

 

Here now is the waterfall locationless The restriction of only being able to log it twice was added later (like I say, November 21st, but the guy never said what year that was). It's horrifically painful to scroll through the logs, but once I got to 2003, I saw two people who logged it at least 10 times apiece for different waterfalls. There were probably more examples, but I was tired of scrolling.

 

However, in the end, I agree with the point made that most of them had a "one log per cacher and once an object is used, it cannot be used by another cacher" restriction.

 

Just ten???? The fire engine locationless has over 190 logs by a single cacher. There may be more, but I got bored. And the Giants are ready to play. Limitation is always important and would be if the idea were ever reintroduced.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Does the "Bring back locationless" sentiment come from a desire to get the icon added to one's Geocaching.com profile? Or does it come from a desire to take on the challenge of hunting down a unique example of a specific type of thing (of which there may be a limited number) and capturing its location to share with others?

 

If it's the latter, I would argue that (for me, anyway, and I'm sure for others), the challenge and fun of finding a unique example of a specific type of thing and capturing its location was about the same for the locationless caches that I logged on my Geocaching.com account as it was for the Waymarks I created under my Waymarking.com account. That is to say, I have enjoyed both, but found that both suffer(ed) from user interface issues.

 

If it's the former (or if it's both), I'd argue that it would probably be easier for Groundspeak to give credit to a person's Geocaching.com profile for each Waymark they published than to develop and implement a new locationless concept into the existing geocaching site.

 

I completely get that the Waymarking site is different than the Geocaching site, and has issues, and <fill in your legitimate objections for not wanting to use the Waymarking site here>.

[Mr.Yuck]

Does the "Bring back locationless" sentiment come from a desire to get the icon added to one's Geocaching.com profile? Or does it come from a desire to take on the challenge of hunting down a unique example of a specific type of thing (of which there may be a limited number) and capturing its location to share with others?

 

If it's the latter, I would argue that (for me, anyway, and I'm sure for others), the challenge and fun of finding a unique example of a specific type of thing and capturing its location was about the same for the locationless caches that I logged on my Geocaching.com account as it was for the Waymarks I created under my Waymarking.com account. That is to say, I have enjoyed both, but found that both suffer(ed) from user interface issues.

 

If it's the former (or if it's both), I'd argue that it would probably be easier for Groundspeak to give credit to a person's Geocaching.com profile for each Waymark they published than to develop and implement a new locationless concept into the existing geocaching site.

 

I completely get that the Waymarking site is different than the Geocaching site, and has issues, and <fill in your legitimate objections for not wanting to use the Waymarking site here>.

 

You know, for myself, geodarts, and the OP, who all were obviously around and able to log them, the desire for the icon is not a factor. For many, I'd agree yes. There were only about 500,000 accounts when they were locked, there are now 11-12 million. You do the math, well over 90% of registered Geocachers were not around to log them. But hey, I've been occasionally seeking them (I've never actually placed or created one) on three alternative Geocaching websites since 2005.

 

 

Here now is the waterfall locationless The restriction of only being able to log it twice was added later (like I say, November 21st, but the guy never said what year that was). It's horrifically painful to scroll through the logs, but once I got to 2003, I saw two people who logged it at least 10 times apiece for different waterfalls. There were probably more examples, but I was tired of scrolling.

 

However, in the end, I agree with the point made that most of them had a "one log per cacher and once an object is used, it cannot be used by another cacher" restriction.

 

Just ten???? The fire engine locationless has over 190 logs by a single cacher. There may be more, but I got bored. And the Giants are ready to play. Limitation is always important and would be if the idea were ever reintroduced.

 

Agreed. One log per cacher would be a must if this idea was implemented. And we're all just dreaming anyways, by the way.

[GCEdo]

I like this idea! I enjoy creating Waymarks, so I'm sure I would enjoy searching for locationless caches. I would never log more than one find on the same locationless cache, and also I would like to find one that is not found before. I found this virtual that is actually locationless, and enjoyed the search and the entire experience...

http://coord.info/GCB652

[+Gill & Tony]

I would expect a one find per cacher restriction. Most caches you can only find once.

 

One cacher per location - no so good.

[team tisri]

I would expect a one find per cacher restriction. Most caches you can only find once.

 

One cacher per location - no so good.

 

One log per location is too restrictive for reasons already detailed above, but I like the idea of putting a time restriction so that once an example is found and logged it can't be used again.

 

If the task is to find a waterfall it's more interesting if people have to find a different waterfall, rather than just having every tourist in Ontario post yet another picture of the Niagara Falls.

[+Isonzo Karst]

You guys do realize that as you keep refining this idea, you've invented Waymarking all over again, right?

[Mr.Yuck]

You guys do realize that as you keep refining this idea, you've invented Waymarking all over again, right?

 

Do we get a slow as molasses website that hasn't been touched by a dev in 3 years to go along with it?

[+Isonzo Karst]

Sure, and you can have the Wherigo site too, where the

stuff was last updated 5/29/2008

 

I don't find Waymarking especially slow? admittedly, I only use it to look up boat ramps when I'm doing paddle caches and no ramp is offered.

I'm not logging much and I think a couple of ramps is all I've created.

[Mr.Yuck]

Sure, and you can have the Wherigo site too, where the

stuff was last updated 5/29/2008

 

I don't find Waymarking especially slow? admittedly, I only use it to look up boat ramps when I'm doing paddle caches and no ramp is offered.

I'm not logging much and I think a couple of ramps is all I've created.

 

I don't know, I've found it slow for years. Especially when they added all the Geocaching like statistics stuff. Again, I'm not a hata. I've visited Waymarks every single year since the site went live. I'd like to know how many can claim that statistic.

[+MountainWoods]

That's the problem, Mr. Yuck, because not enought people use it, no time is being spent on it; so very few like it and use it, so no time is being spent on it; so very few like it and use it -- ad nauseum.

 

If Groundspeak would integrate the Waymarking and Geocaching stats, I think a lot more people would take a look at Waymarking, and then the site would finally get on someone's radar to fix up.

 

Since it has never been about the numbers for me, I just do both and enjoy them both. I have to admit that I've come to like locationless (Waymarking) more, but both things take you out and about to interesting places and things.

 

Anyone concerned about showing their prowess in both sides of it (since Groundspeak isn't combining the stats) can make a badge for each and put them together in their profile, like a lot of us do.

 

It's a matter of priorities to me. I don't like the fact that the Waymarking site is so broken, but the hobby is so enjoyable that the problems with the web site issues are secondary, if sometimes frustrating. It is the "field work" of going to see things and find things that is what is all about to me. Would you still hunt geocaches if (or is it when) the geocache pages had a lot of issues?

[+CanadianRockies]

Would you still hunt geocaches if (or is it when) the geocache pages had a lot of issues?

The more dedicated geocachers would; the less dedicated ones wouldn't. If the Geocaching website was the same quality as the Waymarking site, then there certainly would be much fewer active geocachers.

[+tozainamboku]

Would you still hunt geocaches if (or is it when) the geocache pages had a lot of issues?

The more dedicated geocachers would; the less dedicated ones wouldn't. If the Geocaching website was the same quality as the Waymarking site, then there certainly would be much fewer active geocachers.

I don't doubt that poor performance would discourage some people. The problem is that most geocachers today are using smartphone apps, so as long as the smartphone app seems responsive, most geocachers would not care if the website was slow.

 

I remember when Waymarking was first launched. Back then there were all sorts of issues with Geocaching.com. It seemed that Groundspeak was have a difficult time scaling Geocaching.com as the number of users grew. I know one of the reasons for the initial moratorium on locationless, and probably the launch of Waymarking itself, was to push some of the load off geocaching.com. Locationless were an impediment to making improvements in GC.com performances since they didn't fit the model of other caches. You couldn't search for nearby locationless, so you needed to have a search for all locationless caches. Yet, locationless caches had coordinates so they showed up in regular searches as well. Then if you were going to find a locationless cache you had to look at all the logs to see if the location you had in mind had already been logged. Some popular locationless could have thousands of logs.

 

IIRC, the design of Waymarking and the underlying database were meant to be more scalable than the database that was then being used for geocaching.com. Then developers tested this were pretty confident that queries of waymarks would not become unbearably slow when the number of waymarks became large. In fact the idea was to use the underlying architecture of Waymarking to solve some issues with Geocaching.com by migrating the geocache database to use the Waymarking architecture.

 

Instead. Groundspeak appears to have taken a different route. I still believe the original geocache database got migrated, only to another relational DB engine, that was better designed to deal with large databases than the original freeware one. They hired some consultants that helped tweek the schema and SQL to improve performance. A few capabilities were dropped because they were deemed to be too much of a load. As TPTB began to see an income stream from geocaching that allowed them to upgrade hardware. Front-end problems were addressed with some redesign and the development of geocahing apps took some of load off the website.

 

In the meantime they pretty much abandoned work on Waymarking. AFAIK the Waymarking database may still be on ten year old servers.

 

I don't think performance is the issue with Waymarking as much as the UI. I personally liked what was a modern user interface at the time. But many people got lost in the busy interface and couldn't find the way to do basic simple tasks.

 

Geoccaching had established the idea of 1) enter your zip code; 2) look for caches you want to find; 3) download the caches to your GPS. But Waymarking is a bit more complicated game - primarily for creating new waymarks in various categories with visits really a minor side game. So I think that any UI is going to have the problem of dealing with a more complex set of tasks. But I suspect that if there was a team dedicated to making improvements to Waymarking that the UI would have changed quite a bit instead of being stuck with what was originally provided.

Edited October 25, 2014 by tozainamboku

[team tisri]

You guys do realize that as you keep refining this idea, you've invented Waymarking all over again, right?

 

Not really, if the idea is to say "find a waterfall nobody else has logged and post a picture of it", that's a very different proposition from "find a waterfall nobody else has listed, then encourage everybody and their dog to visit it and log it". Which in turn is very different from "list every single branch of McStarCoffeeKing and wonder whether anybody will visit".

[+cache_test_dummies]

You guys do realize that as you keep refining this idea, you've invented Waymarking all over again, right?

 

Not really, if the idea is to say "find a waterfall nobody else has logged and post a picture of it", that's a very different proposition from "find a waterfall nobody else has listed, then encourage everybody and their dog to visit it and log it".

But if we take out the bolded bit (since nobody does that), we're left with "find a waterfall nobody else has logged and post a picture of it" (locationless concept) and "find a waterfall nobody else has listed and post a picture of it" (Waymarking concept - I added the "and post a picture of it" text to the Waymarking part since pictures are almost always a requirement for creating new waymarks).

 

I don't see any real the difference between these two statements, so it sounds to me that Isonzo Karst's statement has merit.

[+tozainamboku]

You guys do realize that as you keep refining this idea, you've invented Waymarking all over again, right?

 

Not really, if the idea is to say "find a waterfall nobody else has logged and post a picture of it", that's a very different proposition from "find a waterfall nobody else has listed, then encourage everybody and their dog to visit it and log it".

But if we take out the bolded bit (since nobody does that), we're left with "find a waterfall nobody else has logged and post a picture of it" (locationless concept) and "find a waterfall nobody else has listed and post a picture of it" (Waymarking concept - I added the "and post a picture of it" text to the Waymarking part since pictures are almost always a requirement for creating new waymarks).

 

I don't see any real the difference between these two statements, so it sounds to me that Isonzo Karst's statement has merit.

"Find a waterfall that nobody else has logged and get a smiley" vs. "Find a waterfall that nobody else has listed" The difference seems clear to me.

Edited October 25, 2014 by tozainamboku

[Mr.Yuck]

You guys do realize that as you keep refining this idea, you've invented Waymarking all over again, right?

 

Not really, if the idea is to say "find a waterfall nobody else has logged and post a picture of it", that's a very different proposition from "find a waterfall nobody else has listed, then encourage everybody and their dog to visit it and log it".

But if we take out the bolded bit (since nobody does that), we're left with "find a waterfall nobody else has logged and post a picture of it" (locationless concept) and "find a waterfall nobody else has listed and post a picture of it" (Waymarking concept - I added the "and post a picture of it" text to the Waymarking part since pictures are almost always a requirement for creating new waymarks).

 

I don't see any real the difference between these two statements, so it sounds to me that Isonzo Karst's statement has merit.

"Find a waterfall that nobody else has logged and get a smiley" vs. "Find a waterfall that nobody else has listed" The difference seems clear to me.

 

OK, I'm sort of starting to see where you and IK are coming from. I believe you said creating a waymark was more like finding a locationless cache. Especially considering most (but not all of them), had the whole "it can only be logged once" thing going on. However, I, like you two have been around for the whole ride on the Waymarking thing. I don't think for one microsecond that was The Frog's intent, nor was the way Waymarking quickly developed into a creators game, with almost no one visiting them.

[+cache_test_dummies]

"Find a waterfall that nobody else has logged and get a smiley" vs. "Find a waterfall that nobody else has listed" The difference seems clear to me.

Well, of course if it's only the icon we're talking about, then I agree. That's why I asked the question above about the objective behind the "Bring back locationless" sentiment, and suggested that if the icon is the objective, it would be much easier for Groundspeak to simply give icons on the Geocaching stats page for each Waymark that a person lists than to implement a new locationless concept on the GC.com site.

 

If creating a Waymark was worth a in the GC.com stats, I'd bet you'd see the popularity of the Waymarking site increase dramatically.

 

As a person who reviews lots of Waymarks in the categories I manage, I'm not sure that would be a good thing, now that I think about it.

[+MountainWoods]

Which is right back to my earlier statement that folks might consider Waymarking more if the statistics were integrated with geocaching = get a Smiley for Waymarking.

 

I remember when I first started Waymarking that I had the same n00b question that other Waymarkers have: why aren't our posting and visiting statistics merged into the Geocaching statistics?

 

BTW, Thanks a lot tozainamboku for the history. I've only been GCing since early 2012 and Waymaring since late 2012, so I didn't realize where things were coming from. And I'll bet you're right about the WM servers being 10 year old (= ancient in computer) technology.

[Mr.Yuck]

Which is right back to my earlier statement that folks might consider Waymarking more if the statistics were integrated with geocaching = get a Smiley for Waymarking.

 

I remember when I first started Waymarking that I had the same n00b question that other Waymarkers have: why aren't our posting and visiting statistics merged into the Geocaching statistics?

 

BTW, Thanks a lot tozainamboku for the history. I've only been GCing since early 2012 and Waymaring since late 2012, so I didn't realize where things were coming from. And I'll bet you're right about the WM servers being 10 year old (= ancient in computer) technology.

 

Boy, I'm starting to sound like "I was around before Waymarking, and saw the whole thing from day one guy", aren't I? This, the integration of the stats between the sites, has been discussed many times in the past. I think it had a much better chance when Waymarking was newer. Right about now, in 2014, I think it has just about a zero percent chance of happening. Not that it's not a good idea, and always has been.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Mr.Yuck

[Mr.Yuck]

Never mind, double post.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Mr.Yuck

[+cache_test_dummies]

Right about now, in 2014, I think it has just about a zero percent chance of happening.

Yup.

 

Not that it's a reason to stop asking, but other things that have have just about a zero percent chance of happening, in order of relevance to this topic, are:

 

1) The return of Locationless caches

[+baloo&bd]

Which is right back to my earlier statement that folks might consider Waymarking more if the statistics were integrated with geocaching = get a Smiley for Waymarking.

 

I remember when I first started Waymarking that I had the same n00b question that other Waymarkers have: why aren't our posting and visiting statistics merged into the Geocaching statistics?

 

BTW, Thanks a lot tozainamboku for the history. I've only been GCing since early 2012 and Waymaring since late 2012, so I didn't realize where things were coming from. And I'll bet you're right about the WM servers being 10 year old (= ancient in computer) technology.

 

Boy, I'm starting to sound like "I was around before w aymarking, and saw the whole thing from day one guy", aren't I? This, the integration of the stats between the sites, has been discussed many times in the past. I think it had a much better chance when Waymarking was newer. Right about now, in 2014, I think it has just about a zero percent chance of happening. Not that it's not a good idea, and always has been.

 

Especially in light of the fact that logging Waymarking stats on the Geocaching site makes about as much sense as showing miles you have ridden on your bicycle on the page. Other than a common owner, one has nothing to do with the other.

 

I've been around long enough to remember when this thread was about locationless caches.

Edited October 27, 2014 by baloo&bd

[Mr.Yuck]

Hey, I wasn't the one who brought up Waymarking. Or was I?

[+cache_test_dummies]

Maybe the reason Waymarking still gets brought up in discussions of Locationless caches is that some people are looking at Section 6.10 of the Help Center, which says that "All the Locationless geocaches were archived and locked in January 2006. The new home for these types of geocaches is Waymarking.com."

[+funkymunkyzone]

these fake Lab cache thingys

 

Interesting. The thing about a Lab cache is that it can be anything, anything that lets the seeker end up in possession of a codeword to log the find.

 

My observation is that the first time a Mega event has the opportunity to have labs, they don't quite grasp this notion - and they tend to place

temp trads.

 

But if you get to an event where someone has done Labs before, has time to think on the opportunity they present, is creative, then the Labs can be *quite* cool. (I don't like the no text logging, and don't always bother to log, but the experience can be good). The folks that put together the Labs (15 of them) at the GPS Maze opening event in Alabama had a clue about how to take advantage of the opportunity they present. They also had permission to go nuts with stuff in and around the air and space museum - the Labs were very fun.

 

While I largely agree, to reply to the bit I bolded above, I can say that as a mega organiser who created some lab caches that were effectively temp trads, I can tell you that that is exactly what I was instructed by Groundspeak to do. I was told that my lab caches must have a container and log book, along with the code word. There was no lack of grasping any notion, but rather a specific instruction from Groundspeak to do it a certain way, with no flexibility on that. It's great that the mega lab caches have moved on from that but please don't label anyone as uncreative if you don't know the back story.

 

Now return to your regularly scheduled thread.

Edited October 30, 2014 by funkymunkyzone

[+gpsblake]

Does the "Bring back locationless" sentiment come from a desire to get the icon added to one's Geocaching.com profile? Or does it come from a desire to take on the challenge of hunting down a unique example of a specific type of thing (of which there may be a limited number) and capturing its location to share with others?

 

I have been geocaching since 2003 and have 12 locationless caches found so the first motive is not the case with my suggestion. Just would be something different for people to do each month, break up the routine, that kind of thing. Stuff like find a confluence of coords where you must have N xx 00.000 W xx 00.000 showing on your GPS with a picture, visting county highpoints, random waypoints Groundspeak puts out each month for people to visit, fun stuff like that. Could even call it something other then locationless cache if they want, a new category perhaps???????

 

Like I said, one and only one active each month, archived at midnight Groundspeak time with no further loggings allowed, with a new one issued on the 1st (or can be done on special dates, or weeks, or whatever the imagination comes up with).

[+gpsblake]

Duplicate post, deleted. My mistake.

Edited October 31, 2014 by gpsblake

[+MountainWoods]

Does the "Bring back locationless" sentiment come from a desire to get the icon added to one's Geocaching.com profile? Or does it come from a desire to take on the challenge of hunting down a unique example of a specific type of thing (of which there may be a limited number) and capturing its location to share with others?

 

I have been geocaching since 2003 and have 12 locationless caches found so the first motive is not the case with my suggestion. Just would be something different for people to do each month, break up the routine, that kind of thing. Stuff like find a confluence of coords where you must have N xx 00.000 W xx 00.000 showing on your GPS with a picture, visting county highpoints, random waypoints Groundspeak puts out each month for people to visit, fun stuff like that. Could even call it something other then locationless cache if they want, a new category perhaps???????

 

Like I said, one and only one active each month, archived at midnight Groundspeak time with no further loggings allowed, with a new one issued on the 1st (or can be done on special dates, or weeks, or whatever the imagination comes up with).

 

There are categories for those in Waymarking, except maybe the random waypoints.

 

Now that I've read the history of what came before my arrival in Geocaching and Waymarking, I think that

posting a Waymark for a category is similar to the old locationless geocaches, and

visiting a Waymark is like the old virtuals.

 

The main difference is that the Waymarking posts and visits are not shown in the Geocaching site statistics. But for those of us for whom the statistics are secondary to the experience, Waymarking does provide those types of old Geocaching experiences.

 

Edit: In fact, I see that you have done both. Good.

Edited October 31, 2014 by MountainWoods