Jump to content

Moving caches gone:


Recommended Posts

I guess the big question is, why is the page locking necessary? Wouldn't just archiving be enough?

Sure, archiving would be "enough" if one can count on geocachers to only log archived listings legitimately (like being behind on logging finds, or when splitting up a team account into individual accounts). Is that a safe assumption to make? As my response, every non-legitimate log on a virtual or webcam cache post-archival is hereby incorporated by reference into this post. The archived Project APE caches are locked for similar reasons.

If that's your argument, then why aren't ALL caches locked after being archived?

Simple. There are valid finds on archived caches. For example: https://coord.info/GLMP0CFY ...(I found that cache more than a year after it was archived).

Exactly my point. So why lock the brass cap & YOSM pages when there is potential for legitimate finds? The potential for illegitimate found logs is not a good argument for locking a cache page. So why were they archived AND locked?

 

Read the rest of my post:

 

Since the brass caps/YOSM are essentially virtual caches, the excuse would always be that "the monuments are still there, so I should still be able to log them".

And what's the issue with that? It's no different than an archived cache that's in place. It's still there, so you should be able to log it!

Link to comment

I fear this doesn't bode well for webcam caches.

 

What is the connection you're perceiving between webcams and moving caches?

Apparently any/all old cache types could be archived with locked pages at any time with no warning whatsoever.

 

Even if it's promised that they won't be archived, that clearly cannot be trusted either.

Link to comment

HQ has been monitoring this discussion, and we feel some clarification is needed.

 

 

Thanks. Timing was unfortunate, and initial communication could have been better. But if the reason is you needed to get rid of exceptions to the 0.1 mile coordinate change, I understand that.

Link to comment

Apparently any/all old cache types could be archived with locked pages at any time with no warning whatsoever.

 

Even if it's promised that they won't be archived, that clearly cannot be trusted either.

 

The issues CathyH mentioned in her post regarding moving caches do not apply to webcams.

 

Also, to be clear, moving caches were never a cache type.

Link to comment

I fear this doesn't bode well for webcam caches.

 

What is the connection you're perceiving between webcams and moving caches?

It's my understanding that they generate a lot of problems for the same people that perceived the moving caches to be a problem. May as well toss what's left of virtuals on the fire, too.

Link to comment

Caches like Brass Cap and YOSM are locationless caches, but were listed as the wrong cache type when published. They only existed for this long because of that error, and should have been archived at the end of 2005 with the rest of the old locationless caches. Those locationless caches can still be listed and visited on Waymarking.com. See U.K. and Ireland Trigpoints and Canadian Benchmarks.

I fear this doesn't bode well for webcam caches.

What is the connection you're perceiving between webcams and moving caches?

It's my understanding that they generate a lot of problems for the same people that perceived the moving caches to be a problem. May as well toss what's left of virtuals on the fire, too.

Yep, might as well throw all remaining locationless caches such as virtuals, webcams and ECs to the Waymarking trash bin if you're justified in doing it to the brass cap cache and YOSM. In fact, some existing virtuals ARE brass caps / survey markers.

Link to comment

Caches like Brass Cap and YOSM are locationless caches, but were listed as the wrong cache type when published. They only existed for this long because of that error, and should have been archived at the end of 2005 with the rest of the old locationless caches. Those locationless caches can still be listed and visited on Waymarking.com. See U.K. and Ireland Trigpoints and Canadian Benchmarks.

I fear this doesn't bode well for webcam caches.

What is the connection you're perceiving between webcams and moving caches?

It's my understanding that they generate a lot of problems for the same people that perceived the moving caches to be a problem. May as well toss what's left of virtuals on the fire, too.

Yep, might as well throw all remaining locationless caches such as virtuals, webcams and ECs to the Waymarking trash bin if you're justified in doing it to the brass cap cache and YOSM. In fact, some existing virtuals ARE brass caps / survey markers.

 

Locationless is completely different than containerless.

Link to comment

Caches like Brass Cap and YOSM are locationless caches, but were listed as the wrong cache type when published. They only existed for this long because of that error, and should have been archived at the end of 2005 with the rest of the old locationless caches. Those locationless caches can still be listed and visited on Waymarking.com. See U.K. and Ireland Trigpoints and Canadian Benchmarks.

I fear this doesn't bode well for webcam caches.

What is the connection you're perceiving between webcams and moving caches?

It's my understanding that they generate a lot of problems for the same people that perceived the moving caches to be a problem. May as well toss what's left of virtuals on the fire, too.

Yep, might as well throw all remaining locationless caches such as virtuals, webcams and ECs to the Waymarking trash bin if you're justified in doing it to the brass cap cache and YOSM. In fact, some existing virtuals ARE brass caps / survey markers.

 

Locationless is completely different than containerless.

Please explain - I must be confused. I don't understand how the brass cap cache is locationless while a virtual cache of a brass cap is not?

Link to comment

Please explain - I must be confused. I don't understand how the brass cap cache is locationless while a virtual cache of a brass cap is not?

 

Virtual caches do not move from location to location without review. Brass Cap was a locationless cache incorrectly listed as a virtual.

Link to comment
Locationless is completely different than containerless.
Please explain - I must be confused. I don't understand how the brass cap cache is locationless while a virtual cache of a brass cap is not?
The basic idea of a locationless cache is that you need to find an object of a given type, and then log its location. That is, there is no fixed location. Instead, there is a type of object that could appear in any number of locations, and you are to find one and then log the location where you found it.

 

Containerless caches have a fixed location. What they don't have is a container and a log. So instead of finding the container, signing the log, and replacing the container, you have to do something else (like uploading a photo or answering some questions). But you still have to go to the specified location.

 

Does that help clarify the difference?

Link to comment

I fear this doesn't bode well for webcam caches.

 

What is the connection you're perceiving between webcams and moving caches?

 

I'm hearing that GS is getting complaints about WC caches as well. And GS has a history of getting rid of cache types that they don't want to hear complaints about...

 

I never found a moving cache, but I understand the angst from this that like them.

 

I really like virtuals - apparently there was problems with them too - not they're going away via attrition. Either that, or one day we'll be searching for them and they will all be archived...

 

GS is getting rid of cache types that long term players like. Please don't...

Link to comment

I fear this doesn't bode well for webcam caches.

 

What is the connection you're perceiving between webcams and moving caches?

It's my understanding that they generate a lot of problems for the same people that perceived the moving caches to be a problem. May as well toss what's left of virtuals on the fire, too.

 

Please don't give them any ideas!

Link to comment

I'm hearing that GS is getting complaints about WC caches as well.

 

I fear this doesn't bode well for webcam caches.

 

It's my understanding that they generate a lot of problems for the same people that perceived the moving caches to be a problem. May as well toss what's left of virtuals on the fire, too.

 

"I'm hearing..." and "It's my understanding..." My two least favorite information sources.

 

No one at HQ has ever talked about webcams causing the same problems as moving caches. There's no sense in trying to create a story where one doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Locationless is completely different than containerless.
Please explain - I must be confused. I don't understand how the brass cap cache is locationless while a virtual cache of a brass cap is not?

The basic idea of a locationless cache is that you need to find an object of a given type, and then log its location. That is, there is no fixed location. Instead, there is a type of object that could appear in any number of locations, and you are to find one and then log the location where you found it.

 

Containerless caches have a fixed location. What they don't have is a container and a log. So instead of finding the container, signing the log, and replacing the container, you have to do something else (like uploading a photo or answering some questions). But you still have to go to the specified location.

 

Does that help clarify the difference?

Well, I still think the brass cap cache and YOSM don't fall into the locationless category, as you've defined it (I agree with your definition). You are instructed to find the set survey marker at the given coordinates and email the owner the numbers listed on the marker. Sounds like a containerless cache to me, no?

 

The only unique thing about these caches is that the owner would add more and more loggable markers to the page. But the goal remained the same - visit one of the given coordinates and email the numbers on the marker. You couldn't go and find another similar marker and expect to get a valid find from it (unless it was on the list of loggable markers) - which would be behaviour consistent with a locationless cache as I understand it. I guess it's the act of the owner adding locations that turns it into a 'locationless' cache by some people's standards, although I don't agree that that's the correct terminology for it. It's more like a movable containerless cache, but all previous containerless locations are also loggable.

Link to comment

Please explain - I must be confused. I don't understand how the brass cap cache is locationless while a virtual cache of a brass cap is not?

 

Virtual caches do not move from location to location without review. Brass Cap was a locationless cache incorrectly listed as a virtual.

 

But it is not a Locationless cache. Brass Cap or YOSM was a Virtual cache with many places to find it, and more being added. (Which I guess was one of the problems. That and multi-finds on the same cache.)

A Locationless cache did not have a location. (YOSM has many locations.) For a Locationless cache, the CO would specify: Find one of these: 'A school with separate doors labeled Boys and Girls', 'An octagonal building', 'A Mason-Dixon monument', 'A Visquesney Doughboy'. (Some of the ones I found.) Locations were not given; you had to find it on your own. And each could only be logged once by one geocacher. (If the CO performed his/her maintenance properly.) And you had to list the coordinates for your find. There was even a checker to make sure no one had logged that site before.

There is absolutely nothing in common between Brass Cap/YOSM and Locationless caches. Call them Virtual caches that no longer meet the guidelines. For they were Virtuals, not Locationless. Stop calling them Locationless.

Link to comment

I'm hearing that GS is getting complaints about WC caches as well.

 

I fear this doesn't bode well for webcam caches.

 

It's my understanding that they generate a lot of problems for the same people that perceived the moving caches to be a problem. May as well toss what's left of virtuals on the fire, too.

 

"I'm hearing..." and "It's my understanding..." My two least favorite information sources.

 

No one at HQ has ever talked about webcams causing the same problems as moving caches. There's no sense in trying to create a story where one doesn't exist.

No one ever said webcams were causing the same problems as moving caches.

Link to comment

"I'm hearing..." and "It's my understanding..." My two least favorite information sources.

 

No one at HQ has ever talked about webcams causing the same problems as moving caches. There's no sense in trying to create a story where one doesn't exist.

No one ever said webcams were causing the same problems as moving caches.

Doesn't matter, still a story that does not exist.

Link to comment

Please explain - I must be confused. I don't understand how the brass cap cache is locationless while a virtual cache of a brass cap is not?

 

Virtual caches do not move from location to location without review. Brass Cap was a locationless cache incorrectly listed as a virtual.

 

But it is not a Locationless cache. Brass Cap or YOSM was a Virtual cache with many places to find it, and more being added. (Which I guess was one of the problems. That and multi-finds on the same cache.)

A Locationless cache did not have a location. (YOSM has many locations.) For a Locationless cache, the CO would specify: Find one of these: 'A school with separate doors labeled Boys and Girls', 'An octagonal building', 'A Mason-Dixon monument', 'A Visquesney Doughboy'. (Some of the ones I found.) Locations were not given; you had to find it on your own. And each could only be logged once by one geocacher. (If the CO performed his/her maintenance properly.) And you had to list the coordinates for your find. There was even a checker to make sure no one had logged that site before.

There is absolutely nothing in common between Brass Cap/YOSM and Locationless caches. Call them Virtual caches that no longer meet the guidelines. For they were Virtuals, not Locationless. Stop calling them Locationless.

+1. This is the source of my confusion in a nutshell. To argue that the brass cap and YOSM pages "were listed as the wrong cache type when published" and "they only existed for this long because of that error" seems incorrect to me. If they were archived only because they are thought to be locationless, that's incorrect. They're correctly listed as virtuals; they're just a rare type of moving virtual which did not receive review for the additional loggable locations.

Link to comment

"I'm hearing..." and "It's my understanding..." My two least favorite information sources.

 

No one at HQ has ever talked about webcams causing the same problems as moving caches. There's no sense in trying to create a story where one doesn't exist.

No one ever said webcams were causing the same problems as moving caches.

Doesn't matter, still a story that does not exist.

May not exist at this time but,,, give em some time. People complain, GS gets tired of and doesn't want to deal with it, and they're on the chopping block. I hope no one here is naive enough to think it can't happen.

Link to comment

"I'm hearing..." and "It's my understanding..." My two least favorite information sources.

 

No one at HQ has ever talked about webcams causing the same problems as moving caches. There's no sense in trying to create a story where one doesn't exist.

No one ever said webcams were causing the same problems as moving caches.

Doesn't matter, still a story that does not exist.

Riiiight...

 

Let me know the next time a virtual or webcam publishes in your area.

Edited by fendmar
Link to comment

Please explain - I must be confused. I don't understand how the brass cap cache is locationless while a virtual cache of a brass cap is not?

 

Virtual caches do not move from location to location without review. Brass Cap was a locationless cache incorrectly listed as a virtual.

 

But it is not a Locationless cache. Brass Cap or YOSM was a Virtual cache with many places to find it, and more being added. (Which I guess was one of the problems. That and multi-finds on the same cache.)

A Locationless cache did not have a location. (YOSM has many locations.) For a Locationless cache, the CO would specify: Find one of these: 'A school with separate doors labeled Boys and Girls', 'An octagonal building', 'A Mason-Dixon monument', 'A Visquesney Doughboy'. (Some of the ones I found.) Locations were not given; you had to find it on your own. And each could only be logged once by one geocacher. (If the CO performed his/her maintenance properly.) And you had to list the coordinates for your find. There was even a checker to make sure no one had logged that site before.

There is absolutely nothing in common between Brass Cap/YOSM and Locationless caches. Call them Virtual caches that no longer meet the guidelines. For they were Virtuals, not Locationless. Stop calling them Locationless.

+1. This is the source of my confusion in a nutshell. To argue that the brass cap and YOSM pages "were listed as the wrong cache type when published" and "they only existed for this long because of that error" seems incorrect to me. If they were archived only because they are thought to be locationless, that's incorrect. They're correctly listed as virtuals; they're just a rare type of moving virtual which did not receive review for the additional loggable locations.

"moving virtual" = locationless

Link to comment

"I'm hearing..." and "It's my understanding..." My two least favorite information sources.

 

No one at HQ has ever talked about webcams causing the same problems as moving caches. There's no sense in trying to create a story where one doesn't exist.

No one ever said webcams were causing the same problems as moving caches.

Doesn't matter, still a story that does not exist.

Riiiight...

 

Let me know the next time a virtual or webcam publishes in your area.

 

Umm... this is the definition of a story that does not exist. There is no basis in reality, and it's been explained. Mountain out of a mole hill. Webcams and Virtuals are not in the same class as moving caches. IF anything even happens to them at some point in the future, it will be completely independent and unrelated to moving caches.

No, there is no reason to believe that the same thing will happen because it happened to moving caches. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Link to comment

Technically speaking:

Locationless = "Description" -> "Log where you find Description"

YOSM = "Virtual at GZ" -> "Log the find at GZ" {GZ moves} -> "Log the find at GZ" {repeat...}

 

Conceptually speaking:

Locationless = "Description" -> "Log where you find Description"

YOSM = "Survey Monument" -> "Log where you find Survey Monuments"

 

Conceptually speaking, the moving virtual can be considered a locationless, the only difference being a coordinate coordinate limitation (since it's not a "Locationless Listing") so you can only log one item at a time. The "Moving virtual" is a "Locationless" just bound to the currently listed coordinates instead of being freely loggable from any coordinates.

 

But the concept is the same: The category is Survey Monuments, and listed coordinates are essentially arbitrary; a 'Find' describes a Survey Monument at a GPS location (it just happens to be the same location as the posted coordinates).

 

Technically, YOSM != Locationless.

Conceptually, YOSM = Locationless (+ listed coordinate limitation)

Link to comment

"I'm hearing..." and "It's my understanding..." My two least favorite information sources.

 

No one at HQ has ever talked about webcams causing the same problems as moving caches. There's no sense in trying to create a story where one doesn't exist.

No one ever said webcams were causing the same problems as moving caches.

Doesn't matter, still a story that does not exist.

May not exist at this time but,,, give em some time. People complain, GS gets tired of and doesn't want to deal with it, and they're on the chopping block. I hope no one here is naive enough to think it can't happen.

 

"People are saying ..." No, no they are not. The only time webcams are problematic are when webcams are down for an extended period of time, or the owner is allowing selfies. In those cases, the specific webcam may be archived. But there is no indication anywhere that this would ever happen to all webcams.

Link to comment

Conceptually speaking, the moving virtual can be considered a locationless, the only difference being a coordinate coordinate limitation (since it's not a "Locationless Listing") so you can only log one item at a time. The "Moving virtual" is a "Locationless" just bound to the currently listed coordinates instead of being freely loggable from any coordinates.

 

Depends on the locationless. Not all locationless could be logged from any location.

 

Almost any coordinates: scavenger hunt cache, yellow jeep, palindromes

Specific coordinates: Flagpoles, Eagle scout projects, stone walls, flatiron buildings, rails to trails sign

 

Seems to me the YOSM was very much like the second group of locationless.

Link to comment

Webcams, virtuals and moving caches have been under a war of attrition for some time if anyone hasn't noticed. At some point (I'll hope far into the future) webcams and virtuals will fall above/below some arbitrary metric as noted for moving caches and meet the same demise. I will be sad to see them go just like I am with moving caches and feel fortunate to have found a moving cache in the wild as intended.

Link to comment

Webcams, virtuals and moving caches have been under a war of attrition for some time if anyone hasn't noticed. At some point (I'll hope far into the future) webcams and virtuals will fall above/below some arbitrary metric as noted for moving caches and meet the same demise.

 

Writing as a player here: This is pure speculation on your side. As Groundspeak HQ already explained things, it's also quite disrespectful.

 

Moving caches had special technical semantics: coordinate updates, souvenir handling etc. There's no special semantics for webcam and virtual caches, only different syntax for the "found it" log type on webcams which is called "webcam photo taken". That is pretty easy to support long term from the IT side of things. The only real danger for the remaining virtuals and webcams is abuse by us geocachers, like couch potato logging, and absent/ignorant owners.

 

Back to moving caches: They are not gone. You can still list new ones. Just not as a geocache listing (which doesn't work very well for this kind of cache). But as a travelbug (which works just fine, especially as the coordinate updates are done automaticall through the finders logs). The experience of finding such a cache out there remains the same. So please stop whining and create a great new moving (travelbug-)cache instead.

Edited by eigengott
Link to comment

Webcams, virtuals and moving caches have been under a war of attrition for some time if anyone hasn't noticed. At some point (I'll hope far into the future) webcams and virtuals will fall above/below some arbitrary metric as noted for moving caches and meet the same demise.

 

Writing as a player here: This is pure speculation on your side. As Groundspeak HQ already explained things, it's also quite disrespectful.

 

Moving caches had special technical semantics: coordinate updates, souvenir handling etc. There's no special semantics for webcam and virtual caches, only different syntax for the "found it" log type on webcams which is called "webcam photo taken". That is pretty easy to support long term from the IT side of things. The only real danger for the remaining virtuals and webcams is abuse by us geocachers, like couch potato logging, and absent/ignorant owners.

 

Back to moving caches: They are not gone. You can still list new ones. Just not as a geocache listing (which doesn't work very well for this kind of cache). But as a travelbug (which works just fine, especially as the coordinate updates are done automaticall through the finders logs). The experience of finding such a cache out there remains the same. So please stop whining and create a great new moving (travelbug-)cache instead.

Whether you or i like it or not, find count is an important aspect of geocaching for most people. Travelbugs can be found of course but they don't go towards a person's geocache find stats when logged. They may be fun to find and discover but they are not the same as a moving cache.

 

Bottom line is that another creative and fun aspect of geocaching has been taken away. No matter what anyone says, i find the explanations/excuses used to make these kinds of changes ridiculous. I would say that our geocaching hobby was slowly and quietly being turned into a game to be played in its simplest form but i can't. It's happening quickly and with a beating of the chest..

Link to comment

My understanding of the YOSM cache: it fell afoul of the new “one cache,one found it log” rule but players were allowed to continue to post notes (and incorporate new locations as dictated by the rules of the cache.) Shortly thereafter GS eliminated “moving/traveling” caches and the exceptions that allowed the COs of these caches to move the coordinates more than 0.1mile/161m This eliminated the possibility of new locations for the YOSM and the cache was archived. As I understand it, all of the trigs that had been incorporated into the cache were available for logging as a find (or a note under the new rule if you already logged one as a find) Why not keep the cache active with those (over 700) locations loggable as a find or note as applicable?

I realize that the fun of adding a new one to the list would be no more but that was only available to one person per point anyway.

Edited by Michaelcycle
Link to comment

Webcams, virtuals and moving caches have been under a war of attrition for some time if anyone hasn't noticed. At some point (I'll hope far into the future) webcams and virtuals will fall above/below some arbitrary metric as noted for moving caches and meet the same demise. I will be sad to see them go just like I am with moving caches and feel fortunate to have found a moving cache in the wild as intended.

Curious how you separated your "moving" caches so you can remember them as such. Bookmarks?

We've found and moved a couple, but with no icon for a cache "type", we just go by memory to find 'em. :)

 

Most times when we see webcams/virtuals archived, it's cachers who ruined that experience.

- Bypassing requirements mostly...

When "webcam photo taken" is replaced with a pic from a phone, or a google pic replaces a long-missing GZ object needed to log, we are responsible, not by whim of Groundspeak.

Link to comment

"moving virtual" = locationless

 

Incorrect. Two entirely different cache types.

Absolutely tempted to say words that would get me banned for sure. Just makes me so sad the lack of understanding from those that have power and take consistently wrong decisions.

Link to comment

Curious how you separated your "moving" caches so you can remember them as such. Bookmarks?

We've found and moved a couple, but with no icon for a cache "type", we just go by memory to find 'em. :)

 

Since I have only found the one, it's not difficult. I did have some browser bookmarked to keep track of them that way. It wrecks some of my stats and of course I have that odd state souvenir.

 

Most times when we see webcams/virtuals archived, it's cachers who ruined that experience.

- Bypassing requirements mostly...

When "webcam photo taken" is replaced with a pic from a phone, or a google pic replaces a long-missing GZ object needed to log, we are responsible, not by whim of Groundspeak.

I completely get the whole "not following the rules" thing, but I am just not sure how strictly they should be applied here. It is just a game after all.

Link to comment

Both the Brass Cap and YOSM could have been turned into a perpetual lab cache of sorts. Doesn't matter if it still required coordinate change or not, those two could have remained there, no influence of caching stats, and those that like them are happy.

Link to comment

Both the Brass Cap and YOSM could have been turned into a perpetual lab cache of sorts. Doesn't matter if it still required coordinate change or not, those two could have remained there, no influence of caching stats, and those that like them are happy.

 

You are right that the coordinate changing isn't essential to these caches. But once these were called to attention, Groundspeak's view is they should have been disallowed long ago as they consider them "locationless". So there was no will to make these work.

Link to comment

Both the Brass Cap and YOSM could have been turned into a perpetual lab cache of sorts. Doesn't matter if it still required coordinate change or not, those two could have remained there, no influence of caching stats, and those that like them are happy.

 

You are right that the coordinate changing isn't essential to these caches. But once these were called to attention, Groundspeak's view is they should have been disallowed long ago as they consider them "locationless". So there was no will to make these work.

 

yep, shame. I came past so many trigpoints and survey markers in NW Scotland on Saturday and just let them be because there wasn't much of a point anyway.

Link to comment

Both the Brass Cap and YOSM could have been turned into a perpetual lab cache of sorts. Doesn't matter if it still required coordinate change or not, those two could have remained there, no influence of caching stats, and those that like them are happy.

 

You are right that the coordinate changing isn't essential to these caches. But once these were called to attention, Groundspeak's view is they should have been disallowed long ago as they consider them "locationless". So there was no will to make these work.

 

yep, shame. I came past so many trigpoints and survey markers in NW Scotland on Saturday and just let them be because there wasn't much of a point anyway.

No offense, but what is the point then?

The only "point" was to accrue points on this site?

 

We've found over a hundred benchmarks that aren't in the system.

- And unlike yours, ours aren't even "counted" in with the geocache find count anyway...

 

But it doesn't seem to make it less fun (for us). :)

Link to comment

Both the Brass Cap and YOSM could have been turned into a perpetual lab cache of sorts. Doesn't matter if it still required coordinate change or not, those two could have remained there, no influence of caching stats, and those that like them are happy.

 

You are right that the coordinate changing isn't essential to these caches. But once these were called to attention, Groundspeak's view is they should have been disallowed long ago as they consider them "locationless". So there was no will to make these work.

 

yep, shame. I came past so many trigpoints and survey markers in NW Scotland on Saturday and just let them be because there wasn't much of a point anyway.

No offense, but what is the point then?

The only "point" was to accrue points on this site?

 

We've found over a hundred benchmarks that aren't in the system.

- And unlike yours, ours aren't even "counted" in with the geocache find count anyway...

 

But it doesn't seem to make it less fun (for us). :)

 

Well, I'm someone who likes to log things somewhere. YOSM was a way to log those. There might be a Waymarking category or another website I'm not aware off, but having no phone signal up there I couldn't even look, or check the logging requirements. And making a detour or collecting all sorts of info because I might need it somehow is not me.

Link to comment

I always thought a reasonable solution for the YOSM/Brass Caps would be to expand them into the Benchmarking part of the site. This would allow a similar experience as benchmarking for other countries, and would reinvigorate that part of the site. Also, allows for new development to add a new/missing benchmark to the database of benchmarks and other markers.

Link to comment

I always thought a reasonable solution for the YOSM/Brass Caps would be to expand them into the Benchmarking part of the site. This would allow a similar experience as benchmarking for other countries, and would reinvigorate that part of the site. Also, allows for new development to add a new/missing benchmark to the database of benchmarks and other markers.

 

Yep, that would be a fantastic solution, really! I mean, all the coords are there already.

Link to comment

To summarize:

1) You broke what I'd consider to be a promise by saying the pages weren't going to be archived. That only lasted a few weeks then ended without warning.

 

OMG, you sound like my kids.. it's not a promise unless someone says "I promise". If I tell you one thing and then circumstances change, the original thing is NOT a promise.

 

Some of you people need to learn to move on.

Link to comment

 

OMG, you sound like my kids.. it's not a promise unless someone says "I promise". If I tell you one thing and then circumstances change, the original thing is NOT a promise.

 

Some of you people need to learn to move on.

The only thing I take away from this is that the value of someone or something (corporation) giving their word is no longer a guarantee. We must now question each statement coming from GS as to whether or not what they are saying is factual or not. We all understand that things change. That's not really the issue at stake here. Groundspeak, without any warning or communication, unceremoniously archived two caches which they said, just a few weeks prior, they would not archive. How do we know, with any type of certainty, that what Groundspeak says from now on is actually going to hold true to form? The biggest problem isn't that they were archived; the biggest problem is that Groundspeak said they weren't going to archive them, then went against their posted word, without ANY dissemination to those who might be affected, in this case, their customer base. Any way you look at it, that's bad PR and erodes the trust of the customers with regard to what the company says from now on.

Link to comment

Yep, might as well throw all remaining locationless caches such as virtuals, webcams and ECs to the Waymarking trash bin if you're justified in doing it to the brass cap cache and YOSM. In fact, some existing virtuals ARE brass caps / survey markers.

 

Well, it is the proper place for them. :P That's why we have the Waymarking site. :) I enjoy it. B)

 

In fact, it's already listed there. :laughing:

 

1642-J - British Columbia, Canada - Canadian Benchmarks on Waymarking.com

Edited by Manville Possum
Link to comment

To summarize:

1) You broke what I'd consider to be a promise by saying the pages weren't going to be archived. That only lasted a few weeks then ended without warning.

 

OMG, you sound like my kids.. it's not a promise unless someone says "I promise". If I tell you one thing and then circumstances change, the original thing is NOT a promise.

 

Some of you people need to learn to move on.

 

Don't forget the "slap in the face" to all the true, devoted, old-school cachers who apparently have been around long enough to be able to tell Groundspeak when things can be different and when they can't.

Link to comment

To summarize:

1) You broke what I'd consider to be a promise by saying the pages weren't going to be archived. That only lasted a few weeks then ended without warning.

 

OMG, you sound like my kids.. it's not a promise unless someone says "I promise". If I tell you one thing and then circumstances change, the original thing is NOT a promise.

 

Some of you people need to learn to move on.

 

Don't forget the "slap in the face" to all the true, devoted, old-school cachers who apparently have been around long enough to be able to tell Groundspeak when things can be different and when they can't.

 

I am a true, devoted, old-school cacher that thinks 195 posts on this topic is a waste of time and bandwidth.

Link to comment

OMG, you sound like my kids.. it's not a promise unless someone says "I promise". If I tell you one thing and then circumstances change, the original thing is NOT a promise.

 

Some of you people need to learn to move on.

The only thing I take away from this is that the value of someone or something (corporation) giving their word is no longer a guarantee. We must now question each statement coming from GS as to whether or not what they are saying is factual or not. We all understand that things change. That's not really the issue at stake here. Groundspeak, without any warning or communication, unceremoniously archived two caches which they said, just a few weeks prior, they would not archive.

You mean like the TOU says they can do? Like most any contract-providing entity includes in their agreement?

 

"...without notice...without limitation...without liability..."

 

G. Changes to Our Services. Groundspeak may change, suspend, or discontinue any portion of our services at any time, including but not limited to: any feature, database, application, or content. Groundspeak may also impose limits on certain features offered through our services with or without notice. Our services include software that may update automatically on your device once a new version or feature is available. We are under no obligation to provide maintenance support or upgrades for any of our software except where required by applicable law.

There's a reason contracts include that wording. It's also practical for specific and timely decision-making when your customer/client/community is one globulous world-wide cloud of everyone and no one.

 

Any way you look at it, that's bad PR and erodes the trust of the customers with regard to what the company says from now on.

On its own, this much is true.

HOW an entity decides to carry out decisions may or may not affect the public reputation. But THAT they did is certainly not of issue, and they have every right to.

Link to comment

I always thought a reasonable solution for the YOSM/Brass Caps would be to expand them into the Benchmarking part of the site. This would allow a similar experience as benchmarking for other countries, and would reinvigorate that part of the site. Also, allows for new development to add a new/missing benchmark to the database of benchmarks and other markers.

"That part of the site" doesn't see much action because most benchmarks here aren't listed. :)

- Add new found benchmarks to the system would be cool...

 

But as early as '09, we remember mention that Waymarking was now the site for new entries.

 

Now that most are used to a "find" smiley, adding to the count total every time they found a YOSM/Brass Cap there, do you think a count that doesn't add towards your finds would fly?

May be just me, but I wouldn't think so.

 

Write Note ( a calculable function) was disregarded by many in a heated thread on the subject.

- So curious if it's just a "count" most are looking for, or simply that finds have to count. :)

Link to comment

But as early as '09, we remember mention that Waymarking was now the site for new entries.

 

Now that most are used to a "find" smiley, adding to the count total every time they found a YOSM/Brass Cap there, do you think a count that doesn't add towards your finds would fly?

May be just me, but I wouldn't think so.

 

I liked the concept of Waymarking, but it obviously never took off. Too many people complained about the commercial waymarks such as McDonalds and Walmarts, even though they represent a minority of the waymarks on the site. These categories probably should have never been listed.

 

But the big reason (in my opinion) Waymarking didn't take off is that each waymark visit doesn't give you a +1 in your find count, or anything real noticeable in your stats. If the benchmark categories of Waymarking gave you a +1 find, I believe many people would create & visit them, even though the site itself is less than ideal.

Link to comment

But as early as '09, we remember mention that Waymarking was now the site for new entries.

 

Now that most are used to a "find" smiley, adding to the count total every time they found a YOSM/Brass Cap there, do you think a count that doesn't add towards your finds would fly?

May be just me, but I wouldn't think so.

 

I liked the concept of Waymarking, but it obviously never took off. Too many people complained about the commercial waymarks such as McDonalds and Walmarts, even though they represent a minority of the waymarks on the site. These categories probably should have never been listed.

 

But the big reason (in my opinion) Waymarking didn't take off is that each waymark visit doesn't give you a +1 in your find count, or anything real noticeable in your stats. If the benchmark categories of Waymarking gave you a +1 find, I believe many people would create & visit them, even though the site itself is less than ideal.

Sorta agree. :)

When the other 2/3rds lost (to her) fun locationless, she asked about Waymarking.

- I pointed out your examples (and to us, worse).

Finally we both agreed that Waymarking wouldn't simply be an extension of geocaching, but yet another, separate hobby, and we weren't ready to add another.

- As (at the time) my missed fly fishing and hunting days confirmed. :D

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...