Two suggestions

[+teamCull]

I have two suggestions that I think would benefit geocaching.

#1. Please Groundspeak, consider a month-long time frame where new webcams can be introduced. Their numbers are dwindling and with new cell phone and iphone technology, it isn't as hard as ten years ago to log them. Some may consider it a variation of a virtual, but so are Earthcaches. Here is my suggestion #1. Give a month or two buildup that, let's say, January of 2016, new webcams can be enabled. Many old webcams can be resurrected and new ones are to be found. We would more than double the number of current webcams and it would also revive interest in this fun variant of caching. If enough interest can be generated with a proper buildup, I think it would be successful.

#2. Make Challenge caches its own category. Make it a subset of mystery caches, much like events are sub-divided into events, CITO's and Megas. It would make Challenge caches much easier to keep track of.

So, what does the geocaching community think of these ideas? More importantly, what does Groundspeak think of them?

 

Thank you for your candid consideration.

teamCull

[+Manville Possum]

I have two suggestions that I think would benefit geocaching.

#1. Please Groundspeak, consider a month-long time frame where new webcams can be introduced. Their numbers are dwindling and with new cell phone and iphone technology, it isn't as hard as ten years ago to log them. Some may consider it a variation of a virtual, but so are Earthcaches. Here is my suggestion #1. Give a month or two buildup that, let's say, January of 2016, new webcams can be enabled. Many old webcams can be resurrected and new ones are to be found. We would more than double the number of current webcams and it would also revive interest in this fun variant of caching. If enough interest can be generated with a proper buildup, I think it would be successful.

#2. Make Challenge caches its own category. Make it a subset of mystery caches, much like events are sub-divided into events, CITO's and Megas. It would make Challenge caches much easier to keep track of.

So, what does the geocaching community think of these ideas? More importantly, what does Groundspeak think of them?

 

Thank you for your candid consideration.

teamCull

Webcam caches are still being published on the Waymarking site.

As for Challenges, I don't care if they are reinstated. If they did have their own cache type it would be nice and I would just ignore them.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+Pork King]

I like the fact that there are few webcam caches out there. As an owner of a listing for one, I like that people think they are special and will travel a long way just to log it.

 

Besides, I don't think it would be a good idea to have a limited cache placement window. Soooooo many mediocre caches (even webcam ones) would result.

 

As far as the challenges, I personally wish they would go away altogether.

[+niraD]

#1. Please Groundspeak, consider a month-long time frame where new [whatever] can be introduced.

I don't think this is a good idea, no matter what type of grandfathered cache type is temporarily un-grandfathered. These cache types are grandfathered for a reason. If the reason is no longer applicable, then allow new listings without restriction. If the reason is still applicable, then leave them grandfathered.

 

#2. Make Challenge caches its own category.

This has been suggested before. Personally, I think that challenge caches have grown beyond "staging ground" role of mystery/puzzle caches. But at this point, I think Groundspeak is likely to change challenge caches in a more significant way in response to the Pause on New Challenge Caches.

[+narcissa]

Meh.

[+Manville Possum]

Meh.

Sorry, but I don't understand.

[+Touchstone]

Meh.

Sorry, but I don't understand.

From a popular web based encyclopedia:

 

Meh is an interjection used as an expression of indifference or boredom. It may also mean "be it as it may".[1] It is often regarded as a verbal shrug of the shoulders. The use of the term "meh" shows that the speaker is apathetic, uninterested, or indifferent to the question or subject at hand. It is occasionally used as an adjective, meaning something is mediocre or unremarkable.

[+Manville Possum]

Meh.

Sorry, but I don't understand.

From a popular web based encyclopedia:

 

Meh is an interjection used as an expression of indifference or boredom. It may also mean "be it as it may".[1] It is often regarded as a verbal shrug of the shoulders. The use of the term "meh" shows that the speaker is apathetic, uninterested, or indifferent to the question or subject at hand. It is occasionally used as an adjective, meaning something is mediocre or unremarkable.

 

That is interesting.

[+frinklabs]

Make Challenge caches its own category. So, what does the geocaching community think of these ideas?

 

Challenge Cache

Challenge Caches

New cache type please!

SUBMITTED (30594) - [FEATURE] Quests - making challenge caches a separate cache type

Challenge Cache icon

Challenge geocaches should have their own type

New icon for Challenge caches

Icon for Challenge Geocaches

[FEATURE] Challenge Stars

Suggestion: New cachetype = Challenge Cache?

New icon for Challenge caches

 

More importantly, what does Groundspeak think of them?

 

Pause on New Challenge Caches

[+The A-Team]

#1. Please Groundspeak, consider a month-long time frame where new webcams can be introduced.

I would actually propose the opposite: consider a crackdown on the remaining Webcams (and maybe Virtuals too) to give a warning and then later archive ones that are no longer being maintained. I recently attempted to log a Webcam but couldn't because the camera was pointed the wrong direction all day. Regardless, there were lots of people who were going to the wrong spot and bogus-logging it anyway. The owner has consistently failed to delete these bogus logs over a long time period, so it should be archived for non-maintenance. I expect there are many others in similar situations, and they perpetuate the idea that bogus-logging them is acceptable. Virtuals and Webcam caches are not zero-maintenance caches, though there are some people who seem to think this way. They need to be set straight.

[+bflentje]

Webcam caches are still being published on the Waymarking site.

 

Not productive.

[+bflentje]

#1. Please Groundspeak, consider a month-long time frame where new webcams can be introduced.

I would actually propose the opposite: consider a crackdown on the remaining Webcams (and maybe Virtuals too) to give a warning and then later archive ones that are no longer being maintained. I recently attempted to log a Webcam but couldn't because the camera was pointed the wrong direction all day. Regardless, there were lots of people who were going to the wrong spot and bogus-logging it anyway. The owner has consistently failed to delete these bogus logs over a long time period, so it should be archived for non-maintenance. I expect there are many others in similar situations, and they perpetuate the idea that bogus-logging them is acceptable. Virtuals and Webcam caches are not zero-maintenance caches, though there are some people who seem to think this way. They need to be set straight.

 

As a webcam cache lover, I would easily go along with a crackdown. But only if owners of disabled webcams were allowed to modify their listings to use another nearby webcam where it is apparent the dead webcam will never come back online. In fact if that were the case, I would even go so far as to delete all of the selfie logs. But until that happens, leave it as is.

[+Manville Possum]

Webcam caches are still being published on the Waymarking site.

 

Not productive.

 

It was meant to be informative, and productive. Why would Groundspeak bring back webcam caches when they already moved them to their Waymarking site. I recently visited one that was listed on both sites and plan on submitting some new webcams to the Waymarking category, so as I see it we already have a place for them.

[+Sagefox]

As a webcam cache lover, I would easily go along with a crackdown. But only if owners of disabled webcams were allowed to modify their listings to use another nearby webcam where it is apparent the dead webcam will never come back online.

 

But that is not really what grandfathering is all about. The idea is to phase out the cache type through attrition. When site conditions, logging abuse and owner inattention compromise a webcam or virtual then it is time to put it down.

 

Grandfathering was a gift and I appreciate it but it should not be abused and I support archiving these caches when they turn into junk.

[+DanOCan]

#1. Please Groundspeak, consider a month-long time frame where new webcams can be introduced.

I would actually propose the opposite: consider a crackdown on the remaining Webcams (and maybe Virtuals too) to give a warning and then later archive ones that are no longer being maintained.

I'm with you on this one. I found one of my few Webcam caches back in 2008 and the other day I was looking back at it and I see we were one of the last groups to actually "find" the cache in the intended manner. Shortly after us the camera was disabled and for the next several years the logs are all from people taking selfies with their phones or pictures of the camera itself. I guess that's the Webcam equivalent of a throwdown to avoid a DNF.

 

To the OP:

 

Webcams were much more interesting in the days before smartphones and data plans, when you had to actually work with someone else to capture the webcam image. Given how technology has advanced, Webcams are really just another cheap smiley now. No need to bring them back, they're perfectly fine over on Waymarking.

 

As for challenge caches being their own type? I'm firmly in the crowd that says "Sign the log, claim the Find" so I'd be fine if they never came back, despite the fact I have enjoyed completing a number of them over the years.

Edited September 17, 2015 by DanOCan

[+Dame Deco]

I kind of agree that with the advent of smart phones, the challenge of a webcam cache is gone. Let them die away.

[+niraD]

Webcams were much more interesting in the days before smartphones and data plans, when you had to actually work with someone else to capture the webcam image.

For the record, even before smartphones, it wasn't necessary to work with someone else to capture the webcam image. Of the 3 webcam caches that I've logged, I did 2 of them without a smartphone and without assistance from anyone else.

[+Uncle Alaska]

Webcams were much more interesting in the days before smartphones and data plans, when you had to actually work with someone else to capture the webcam image.

For the record, even before smartphones, it wasn't necessary to work with someone else to capture the webcam image. Of the 3 webcam caches that I've logged, I did 2 of them without a smartphone and without assistance from anyone else.

 

Also, there are many webcams that are not doable by smartphone. Some operate with software languages that don't work on ios devices (for example). I also have run into webcams that are outside cellular range

[+fizzymagic]

Webcam caches are still being published on the Waymarking site.

 

Not productive.

 

It was meant to be informative, and productive.

 

It was neither. Instead, it was dismissive misinformation. Counterproductive.

 

Waymarks are not caches; therefore, webcams on the Waymarking site are not "webcam caches." They are waymarks. Waymarks are not related to caches except that they are hosted by the same company.

 

In the future, if you really want to be informative and productive, don't present incorrect information.

Edited September 18, 2015 by fizzymagic

[+Manville Possum]

Webcam caches are still being published on the Waymarking site.

 

Not productive.

 

It was meant to be informative, and productive.

 

It was neither. Instead, it was dismissive misinformation. Counterproductive.

 

Waymarks are not caches; therefore, webcams on the Waymarking site are not "webcam caches." They are waymarks. Waymarks are not related to caches except that they are hosted by the same company.

 

In the future, if you really want to be informative and productive, don't present incorrect information.

 

Webcams are not geocaches, exactly why they are no longer accepted as a cache type and only as Waymarks.

 

I believe that existing webcams listed as geocaches are problematic to GS HQ, and they are just slowly allowing them to be archived.

[+Dame Deco]

I wish they'd speed it up by archiving the ones that are being logged with selfies instead of webcam shots--

[+Team Microdot]

I wish they'd speed it up by archiving the ones that are being logged with selfies instead of webcam shots--

 

Personally I would derive some light entertainment by gambling on how long before someone builds up the courage to stick their head above the parapet, suffer the slings and arrows of outraged selfie loggers and post a needs archived log

[+Sagefox]

Personally I would derive some light entertainment by gambling on how long before someone builds up the courage to stick their head above the parapet, suffer the slings and arrows of outraged selfie loggers and post a needs archived log

[+AustinMN]

I wish they'd speed it up by archiving the ones that are being logged with selfies instead of webcam shots--

 

Personally I would derive some light entertainment by gambling on how long before someone builds up the courage to stick their head above the parapet, suffer the slings and arrows of outraged selfie loggers and post a needs archived log

 

+1.

 

But not until I've logged it.

 

<running from room>

[+lamoracke]

Personally I would be happy to see some limited webcams brought back. Maybe make them very limited, premium members only, let each state or region only be allotted so many, you have to show the link of a webcam you want in advance and be told as a cache owner if you do not police your webcam finds that the cache will be archived etc etc. Folks are so worried that webcams are not geocaches and they are entitled to that opinion but I think a nicely done webcam adds variety. Maybe if they allow so many per region, they can have a lottery to see who gets them.

 

Just throwing ideas out. I think many folks are frustrated that webcams have bogus finds (even though the vast majority of folks do not even have 20 webcam finds in their counts, folks get 20 caches in an hour on a power trail) so some system that would try to limit bogus finds and encourage responsibility ownership.

 

If all virtuals were gone, all webcams were gone, all challenges were gone, all puzzles were gone (some folks want all puzzles gone too), there would be a lot less variety in this sport and many folks I cache with like variety whether old caches, high favorites, different cache types, etc etc. I love it when a webcam is on my route and yes, that is partly because there are so few of them. I'd still like them if there were more.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

 

Personally I would be happy to see some limited webcams brought back. Maybe make them very limited, premium members only, let each state or region only be allotted so many, you have to show the link of a webcam you want in advance and be told as a cache owner if you do not police your webcam finds that the cache will be archived etc etc. Folks are so worried that webcams are not geocaches and they are entitled to that opinion but I think a nicely done webcam adds variety. Maybe if they allow so many per region, they can have a lottery to see who gets them.

 

Just throwing ideas out. I think many folks are frustrated that webcams have bogus finds (even though the vast majority of folks do not even have 20 webcam finds in their counts, folks get 20 caches in an hour on a power trail) so some system that would try to limit bogus finds and encourage responsibility ownership.

 

If all virtuals were gone, all webcams were gone, all challenges were gone, all puzzles were gone (some folks want all puzzles gone too), there would be a lot less variety in this sport and many folks I cache with like variety whether old caches, high favorites, different cache types, etc etc. I love it when a webcam is on my route and yes, that is partly because there are so few of them. I'd still like them if there were more.

 

I don't recall reading any serious call to get rid of puzzle caches.

 

Variety gets introduced into a hobby or sport to make things interesting, and naturally, some forms of that variety eventually prove to be too far from the core concept after being tried. I think this is what happened with webcam caches. Too far from the "use a GPS to find something" core concept. It's the webpage, go to that corner, oh, look, that must be the camera.

 

Eliminating webcam caches was probably a natural contraction of the rules to help keep "geocaching" from getting so broad that the core concept would get lost. Unchecked, that natural inclination to expand the game could result in it becoming all games to all people.

 

That's the way systems work, and I think GS is to be applauded for taking steps like this to protect the game.

 

There's nothing wrong with webcam caches - but I think they shouldn't be caches; they should be really special waymarks with a logging requirement.

 

Back to my first comment: I don't recall reading any serious call to get rid of puzzle caches, but they shouldn't be considered for elimination under the same reasoning as webcams because a puzzle is just a mechanism to make the hunt FOR THE PHYSICAL CACHE more difficult or more interesting. It's NOT a core-concept compromise.

 

...Bill

[+Manville Possum]

I wish they'd speed it up by archiving the ones that are being logged with selfies instead of webcam shots--

 

Personally I would derive some light entertainment by gambling on how long before someone builds up the courage to stick their head above the parapet, suffer the slings and arrows of outraged selfie loggers and post a needs archived log

 

Better make a special account for logging those NA's.

[+Team Microdot]

I wish they'd speed it up by archiving the ones that are being logged with selfies instead of webcam shots--

 

Personally I would derive some light entertainment by gambling on how long before someone builds up the courage to stick their head above the parapet, suffer the slings and arrows of outraged selfie loggers and post a needs archived log

 

Better make a special account for logging those NA's.

 

The sock puppet accounts used around here for NA's are usually landgrabbers who want the location and lack the cohones to reveal their true identity.

 

Any NA I've ever logged has been using my own account. I thrive on abuse

Edited September 18, 2015 by Team Microdot

[+bflentje]

As a webcam cache lover, I would easily go along with a crackdown. But only if owners of disabled webcams were allowed to modify their listings to use another nearby webcam where it is apparent the dead webcam will never come back online.

 

But that is not really what grandfathering is all about. The idea is to phase out the cache type through attrition. When site conditions, logging abuse and owner inattention compromise a webcam or virtual then it is time to put it down.

 

Grandfathering was a gift and I appreciate it but it should not be abused and I support archiving these caches when they turn into junk.

 

I am quite aware of what grandfathering is. But until reviewers stop perpetuating disabled webcams for months on end, my OPINION stands. Either make them work or purge it like any regular cache. Stop the in between status.

[+on4bam]

Webcams are not geocaches

 

Neither are events

[+Sagefox]

As a webcam cache lover, I would easily go along with a crackdown. But only if owners of disabled webcams were allowed to modify their listings to use another nearby webcam where it is apparent the dead webcam will never come back online.

 

But that is not really what grandfathering is all about. The idea is to phase out the cache type through attrition. When site conditions, logging abuse and owner inattention compromise a webcam or virtual then it is time to put it down.

 

Grandfathering was a gift and I appreciate it but it should not be abused and I support archiving these caches when they turn into junk.

 

I am quite aware of what grandfathering is. But until reviewers stop perpetuating disabled webcams for months on end, my OPINION stands. Either make them work or purge it like any regular cache. Stop the in between status.

I think it is not the responsibity of reviwers to "make them work" in any event and especially by allowing someone to take over another nearby webcam. Like virtual caches, once the feature is compromised or removed that should be the end of it.

 

It would be ideal if the process of demise was quick and clean but it can drag on sometimes. I don't see how it is that the reviewers are "perpetuating" the problem unless they aren't taking action when someone posts a NA.

[+Manville Possum]

Webcams are not geocaches

 

Neither are events

 

Events have hosts and many webcam listings don't even have owners.