Jump to content

Locationless Getting Suspended


Lazyboy & Mitey Mite

Recommended Posts

Seems like a poll that Jeremy took in the general forum will result in the approvals for new locatinless caches being suspended. I'm not certain of the reasoning for suspending them other than the moderators seem to be overworked with poorly thought out locationless caches. No plea for assistance was asked.

 

My thought over there is that only a small percentage of geocachers actually post here. When I last looked the vote was 90% against locationless.

 

I can't stand multi stage caches and seldom do them. No outcry there. I will never bother with a benchmark even though I've stood on top of one. So what? Why are so many upset about something they don't need to participate in?

 

I have worked harder and driven farther to log a locationless than I do for many standard caches. Oh well, small minority voice here.

 

The deal is locationless will be back eventually. Just in a seperate category it appears much like benchmarks.

 

I suspect the same will happen with virtuals since many are also bashing them. Maybe next on the hit list will be micro caches?

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

Link to comment

I think the main reason for desire to revamp them is they are really easy to "hide." You don't have to actually go out and place something somewhere and because of this the approvers probably get swamped with them. Also, Jeremy considers the approval guidelines vague and I agree there should be some concrete, easy to follow rules in place before they continue on. I think this is a good move on Jeremy's part that could very well result in locationless caches getting a little more acceptance than they do now. I have no doubts that locationless caches will be back, so I wouldn't get to worried about it and you can continue to do the ton of them that are out there already.

 

Also, I doubt microcaches are going anywhere because they are just like traditional caces, only smaller. In other words, they don't differ enough from traditional caches as to result in them getting put on hold. Sometimes microcaches are the only way to hide a cache in certain locations due to heavy traffic or lack of places to hide an ammo can or tupperware container.

 

Anyway, I honestly have no opinion on locationless caches and they bother me in no way. I still voted to put them on hold, though, because I felt like getting a less-vague set of approval rules was probably a good idea.

Link to comment

I think a well thought out locationless is just as/or more exciting than a traditional cache. In fact, some caches are so UNTHOUGHT out that you can park and walk 5 feet to them, the cache container out for all to see! I agree that it probably burdens the cache approvers, but I am more concerned with ill-feelings and "cache elitism" that is starting to seep into a lot of postings. Just because you don't like or do locationless caches, doesn't mean others should not have the chance. The same can be said for virtuals, multis and all others. Each different type of cache gives the game another aspect, another way to get your GPS out and wander into areas known and unknown. I don't see that creating a new category for them as a problem, however. Perhaps there should be seperate categories for virtuals, multis and event caches. Each can be labeled and put into its own "type" and you can then go and check on a person's cache finds, instantaneously being able to icon_frown.gifjudge them icon_frown.gif by their amounts in different categories. Let's just have fun and go find some caches, whatever they are!

Link to comment

By the way, there is a HUGE difference between LC's and all of the other categories you mention.

 

In geocaching, whether VC, multi, micro, or regular, you are given COORDINATES for something and have to find it.

 

With locationless, you are given a description of a (usually lame) thing that you are supposed to find WITHOUT A GPSr and then record the coordinates. That's not geocaching.

 

Your reference to benchmarks is also without merit because the HAVE been spun off to their own 'site'.

 

Seth!

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

The deal is locationless will be back eventually. Just in a seperate category it appears much like benchmarks.


 

Have you logged all of the currently approved locationless caches? Are you going to log all of those caches before the new locationless site goes online (presumably in April)?

 

The currently approved locationless caches aren't going anywhere. You'll still be able to log them. Maybe you've already done an exhaustive search and logged every locationless cache that you can possibly log, and check every day in the hopes that someone has created a new loggable locationless. Somehow, I doubt this...

 

I don't see what you're whining about. This is a temporary suspension of locationless approvals, not the end of locationless caches.

Link to comment

Ah, I missed the part about the GENERAL forums. The post I deleted was about the ADMIN forums. Sorry, Lazyboy.

 

(I posted the same poll there, the admins voted to suspend LC's, Jeremy effectively said our opinions don't count and that LCs would stay. Now HE's posted the poll and he'll look like a hero.)

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

[This message was edited by Seth! on February 11, 2003 at 08:07 AM.]

Link to comment

No Snazz I have not gotten all the locationless caches. It would be easier to get all the traditional caches in oregon before all the locationless caches.

 

My mentioning of the various types of cache has to do with speculation on what the future holds Seth. For example I know you aren't big on virtuals. Might we spin them off onto their own website too? It wouldn't matter to me but I'm curious. Many on that thread in the general forum have suggested that. Yes Seth I fully understand the amazing people skills Jeremy has icon_wink.gif. While I am unable to produce it the lord of geocaching did send me an interesting email a few months back.

 

Thing to remember is that I'll continue to play the game in whatever form exists. I enjoy hiking and playing with the gps. I just never thought that the moderators were so overloaded because of the number of locationless caches offered. That seems to be the reasons given for suspending them.

 

Snazz think we should have a special website for black plastic bag caches?

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

Link to comment

Just a thought. Every time people are in an organized large search for something (like the shuttle), there will be a newbie that asks if there are any geocachers helping or that we should help. Then there is a reply pointing out that we already have the coordinates and then look for a cache and these searches are the other way around.

 

Let me just point this out here. I have done a few locationless and don't really care if they are around or not, but I do have to say most of them don't require much thought on the placers part. But, they are THE OPPOSITE of geocaching. Another page, another site, which ever I don't care, but I haven't read any arguments other than "I like to do them" as to why they need to be with the geocaches.

 

smiles_63.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Link to comment

When I first started geocaching I enjoyed the fact that It seemed pretty new. At the time It didn't seem like there were too many rules and regulations. As time goes on I realize things evolve, some for the good and some for the bad. Geocaching Is getting bigger and I suppose there needs to be a governing factor to put a little grease in the wheel. Sometimes things get so big that more rules are needed. As rules are implemented more of what I liked about geocaching are quickly being depleted.

 

I almost hate coming on to these discussion boards simply for the fact that I learn of things I find trivial. I will never do a locationless cache but others do. Those people like doing them and I don't think I should impose my views on them. Locationless caches are not hurting anyone that I can see. Unless your worried that your competition is catching up to you. To sum up what I am trying to say is what will be next and will it ever affect you?

 

Don't hunt what you can't kill!

Link to comment

So, I put a lot of work into the following locationless cache: Conde's Creations which has been discovered and logged 5 times by geocachers with an average of over 300 finds apiece.

 

It may not appeal to those folks who just don't do locationless caches.

 

On the absolute other hand... I put VERY LITTLE work into the following REAL cache: Pay it again, Sam which has been discovered and logged 35 times (logged as a no find two times) by geocachers with an average of 110 cache finds. (not that cache finds matter.. but to stick with it is to appreciate it.. we all know that!)

 

Not to disregard new cachers, we all were there at one time, but....

 

taking the time to stretch your legs by the highway on your way to XXX, and finding a cool little single waypoint cache within 5 minutes walk is a little different than...

 

looking up something in the history books, verifying, cooking up a history lesson of your own, seeking the location and marking a waypoint...finding the best angle and taking thoughtful photos and at the same time appreciating the importance of the history... behind a lowly LOCATIONLESS CACHE

 

I know we are just talking a "moratorium" on approvals, I know it is just a hiatus of new locationless caches. But, if someone puts the time and research I did...into a new locationless cache in the next few months... will their cache just be "sidelined" because it happens to be in a different category of cache types? I am willing to pay more for my annual membership, and instead of having a moratorium on locationless caches, have a more concerted effort to improve the quality/significance of ALL caches. I know that the cache approvers cannot conceivabley research every cache.. but let's look at some severe discrepancies. If I place a multi-waypoint cache.. I can only submit the first point, from there on.. my math, the final location, county, state, country, the actual findability of the cache.. is totally unknown. I could place a cache in Iraq and have the beginning point be Pocatella, Idaho and it would probably be approved. The cache approvers have to trust that we aren't sending people on impossible hunts. That trust is something I don't wish to lose.

 

To overregulate something is to lose its meaning.

 

I don't quite know where I am going with this, but I feel it is important to reiterate that people are all different, some folks enjoy researching a bit of history, then using their GPS and their camera to help document it. That isn't a bad thing.. just perhaps a different thing than what YOU may enjoy doing. I would rather that the next cache that is "thrown" out the car window somewhere along I-5 in the scrub with no real "safe" parking access and no actual asthetic appeal... be rejected.. than to have all locationless caches or any other category of caches.. be stopped altogether. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

Obviously, the problem isn't with well-thought out, creative, and unique LCs (Points of Interest is the new nomenclature, i believe) like Conde's Creations. If all who submitted LCs put as much effort and thought into it as Zzzoey has, then I'm sure we wouldn't be talking about it, and i wouldn't have such a problem with doing them.

One of the main problems, as i understand it, is the rabid tenacity in which one who places a lame LC defends their idea when it is rejected. The VOLUNTEERS that approve caches can just cut and paste a form letter rejection when someone tries to hide one in Crater Lake National Park, but i'm betting that rejecting a lame LC can take days and dozens of email exchanges.

I agree that logging a find on Conde's Creations--or any other good LCs (if there are any)--can be more difficult and rewarding than any number of useless I-5 rest-area caches and the like. Trying to take a good picture of ANYTHING in Oregon City should be worth two smiley faces, if you ask me! But i have a hard time accepting the fact that LCs really fall under the heading of 'geocaching.'

Personally, I'm looking forward to the change--despite the fact that my 'found' count will be reduced from 670 to 666.

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by oregone:

One of the main problems, as i understand it, is the rabid tenacity in which one who places a lame LC defends their idea when it is rejected.


Therein lies the subjectiveness of the "rules". One guys lame is another guys fun.

If workload is the problem, get more aprovers. Its not like they cost anything.

If space is the problem maby try a diffrent membership rate.

BUT! If its some sort of elitest thing where it bothers someone to know that others are out there having fun in a diffrent way that they like, thats just sick.

A few people live in areas where LC's show up on their nearest caches page. 90% of us live in areas like me, where if you want to see LC's you have to search for them on a diffrent page already!

Out of sight is out of mind, isnt it?

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

....BUT! If its some sort of elitest thing where it bothers someone to know that others are out there having fun in a diffrent way that they like, thats just sick.

A few people live in areas where LC's show up on their nearest caches page. 90% of us live in areas like me, where if you want to see LC's you have to search for them on a diffrent page already!

Out of sight is out of mind, isnt it?


 

Sigh. Ish, we've been over this. It has nothing to do with whether or not LCs are fun. Frisbee Golf is fun. But it is not geocaching. LCs are fun. But they aren't geocaching. It's that simple. Elitism? Please.

 

Just so you know, Locationless caches don't show up on ANYBODY'S nearest caches page. That's because they don't have a LOCATION! That's why there is a link at the top of the nearest cache pages called "Also search for locationless caches"

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

Yep frisbee golf isn't geocaching but does not require the use of a gps. Locationless does require a gps. I honestly haven't seen the difference between the two other than the obvious. But who cares. What will happen will happen.

 

Hey Seth maybe you could get the Lord of Geocaching to make me the Lord of Locationless? That way he could be the LOG and I'd be LOL.

 

I wanted to submit a locationless cache myself. It was of a selfish nature and who knows if it would have been approved or not. I'm a scuba diver and wanted to get people to post the coordinates of scuba diving spots. Obvious requirements such as the gps help up in front of a real scuba diver, not a snorkler. That sort of thing. For those west coast spots I would probably visit most of them. Anyway, as I said it was selfish.

 

Maybe when things get changed I'll be able to do that. Although I have a sneaky feeling that since locationless won't count anymore than benchmarks do than it wouldn't get hit very often. For most this activity is about numbers.

 

I've always felt that bowling is a good activity for number freaks.

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

Link to comment

cache

n.

 

1. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.

2. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables.

3. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

4. Any arbitrary object which can be named and cataloged.

 

Oh, crap! Lazyboy is right, locationless "caches" are geocaching!

 

I almost pooped my pants when I saw definition number four. icon_eek.gificon_eek.gif

 

Oops, strike that "almost". Anybody want to "log" the locationless cache I just made?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Seth!:

Just so you know, Locationless caches don't show up on ANYBODY'S nearest caches page. That's because they don't have a LOCATION!


 

They DO, however, show up in your Pocket Queries if their hidden coordinates fall within its radius. When Ambrosia hid her "Butterfly Houses" LC, she chose the one at the Pacific Science Center as her base location, and all of a sudden I had a new closest cache in my PQ.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

[This message was edited by Moun10Bike on February 13, 2003 at 10:07 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

They DO, however, show up in your Pocket Queries if their hidden coordinates fall within its radius. When Ambrosia hid her "Butterfly Houses" LC, she chose the one at the Pcific Science Center as her base location, and all of a sudden I had a new closest cache in my PQ.


 

You can set up Pocket Queries to not return locationless caches...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

 

I honestly haven't seen the difference between the two other than the obvious.


 

It's been said multiple times, but to repeat for clarity, locationless are different because they are the exact opposite of all other cache types:

 

Locationless cache --> Find something first, then use GPS

All other cache types --> Use GPS first, then find something

 

That's a significant enough difference in my book to warrant classifying them as a separate game.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

If it isnt kosher to say LC then why isnt everyone put out about the "EVENT CACHE" thing then.

You can find "Redmond Regional Library, for example", in any phone book and any taxi driver could get you there without a gps. So No GPS nessisary AND no cache. Double whammy?

I half expect to see a upcomming thread on voting whether to change the name of those too.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

 

[This message was edited by Ish-n-Isha on February 13, 2003 at 01:54 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by Ish-n-Isha on February 13, 2003 at 01:59 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Is this statement based on your careful research? How large of a cross-section of the geocaching population did you use in your study?

 

You might be surprised at how many cachers I know. I've been to lots of events and have thrown a couple. I consider most to be my friends. Now you be nice to me snazz and maybe I'll go to Bend and name a black plastic bag cache after you.

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

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...