would you rather log aTraditional cache or a Earthcache

[+Clongo_Rongo 122]

I see  EarthCaches are not found often and some co's place them to make sure you don't understand them, so many don't bother looking at them when out doing a series.
An example of this is a trad cache at the same location is found many times, but the EC is found few times .
in my area there is a race to get FTF, but not on a Earthcahes
i have seen in other regions earth caches neglected as just not worth the effort as the co's enjoys deleting incorrect logs rather than helping them gain more information, so to learn more.
If a Ec was placed to find, without having to be on google trying to understand what the co mean's, it may be more fun, 
if i had an earth cache, i would like logs like this :-
great location, the rock was wet and shiney, amazing shapes,. the water has created an unusual shape, its rough and so on - fun fun 

[+Viajero Perdido 873]

Earthcaches are the strangest part of this game to me.  There's nothing to "find", or possibly not find, and it's just some oddly restricted subset of Virtual.

 

I've been Earthcache-free for over ten years.    Even passed up the opportunity for at least one EC FT"F".  I don't do strange, and I'm old enough to choose what I wish to learn about.

[+BlueEagle23 16]

Earth Caches can bring you to fascinating locations. I have been to a few that I didn't bother to log. I prefer putting pen to paper before claiming a geocache find, and not having to email proof to the cache owner.

[+IceColdUK 1040]

Surely, variety is the spice of life. :-)

 

I agree that some Earthcaches can be pretty tough, but then so can a Trad 30 feet up a tree.

 

Personally, I like puzzles, but many hate these.  I find more Trads than Earthcaches (there are more of them about), but generally I get more satisfaction from the Earthcaches - though, I still can’t tell igneous from metamorphic rock! ;-)

[+grimpil 68]

I had a go at a few earthcaches but will not prioritise them unless one happens to be at a location I am visiting anyway along one of my walking routes.  But I do read the details of many ECs on the site as they can be interesting & informative & the COs obviously put in a lot of work to creating them.  Of the ones I did find some told me new information about familiar locations & one led me to a place I had walked near dozens of times over decades & was unaware of.

[+baer2006 788]

16 minutes ago, BlueEagle23 said:

Earth Caches can bring you to fascinating locations. I have been to a few that I didn't bother to log. I prefer putting pen to paper before claiming a geocache find, and not having to email proof to the cache owner.

It's quite similar for me. Many ECs indeed show you nice locations, but more often than not the whole "geology" thing doesn't really interest me. In these cases I always log with a note, describing my caching experience but also saying that I won't log a find because I just don't feel like answering all the questions. Also, it seems that owner of newer EC come up with more complicated (and often very subjective) questions, which makes me feel like being in school again and having to do an exam.

That said, it could easily happen that I find a traditional, but only log a note (or even nothing at all) for the EC at the same location.

Edited February 10, 2019 by baer2006
typo

[+on4bam 1498]

I enjoy ECs as they require at least some effort (not like a brainless traditional pickup). Most of the time they bring you to extraordinary places and on top of that you learn something. I'd rather spend two hours on an EC than 2 minutes on a traditional.

Especially on holiday I try to get as many ECs and virtuals as possible as they are mostly placed where there's something interesting.

 

 

[+barefootjeff 3827]

By way of comparison, I have an EC and a traditional in the same general area (about 4km apart), hidden within a few months of each other in 2014. The EC (GC5AKEX) has had 44 finds and received 11 FPs, while the traditional (GC5H5G2) has had 50 finds and received 14 FPs, so there's not much of a difference. The EC questions centre around observations and a little deduction at GZ so Google wouldn't be of much use in answering them, and most of the logs indicate people enjoyed the experience and the interesting geological feature there.

 

I try to design my hides around bringing people to an interesting place, be it an expansive view, unusual rock formation, waterfall, cave or whatever. If I can I'll place a physical container there, but sometimes that's not possible. In the case of my EC, which is in the intertidal zone at the base of a headland, there's a traditional almost directly above at the top of that headland which ruled out putting anything there. For others, the interesting place is within a national park, where approval is needed for physical placements but not for virtual waypoints or ECs, so if the interesting thing is geological in nature an EC might be the preferred option.

 

As for my own preference as a finder, I much prefer something that offers a bit of a challenge and is somewhere interesting and fun to visit than a run-of-the-mill P&G placed solely because there was a gap in the saturation map. Yes, some ECs have questions that seem rather obtuse, but there are some very good ones too that have made me think and learn something about the natural environment.

[+Harry Dolphin 1164]

EarthCaches are rare.  So, I save to local ones for EarthCache Souvenir Days!  Generally, I enjoy them, though some seem obtuse.  "Measure the boulder and the rocks it's resting on, and tell me the pounds per square inch of pressure.  X is the density per cubic inch."  Not sure I'll ever do that one.  My nephew's EarthCache deals with iron ore and magnetite,and seems to be greatly appreciated.  "This rock affects my compass!"

[+cerberus1 3315]

I miss waterfalls...

Have a couple ECs near me that I save for when some "earthcache day" with another souvenir comes up (and have the time). 

I enjoy unique areas, so most fit ... but dyslexic old farts can't solve some of the multiple requirements just for a smiley.

 - That's different by CO,  but many times I've headed out just to see that unique area without the "smiley".

For example, I completed a series that circled around an EC... 

Since there were so many questions for it, I simply went home after the series (because I saw the area intended).

 

I haven't logged hundreds of cache types online (but sign all with a log) , so "would you rather" doesn't matter to me I guess.

[+Mausebiber 497]

47 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

EarthCaches are rare. 

 

Not where I come from.  Below are just some examples.  Please filter on EC:

 

http://coord.info/map?ll=28.28927,-16.67107&z=12

http://coord.info/map?ll=51.96817,8.58925&z=12

http://coord.info/map?ll=50.44264,7.16206&z=12

 

We like EC very much and we use them as tourist guides.  They often were leading us to locations not found in any regular guide.  Thanks to all the EC owners for showing us those interesting places around to world.

 

Edited February 11, 2019 by Mausebiber

[+Harry Dolphin 1164]

53 within 50 miles.  19 in New York City, Westchester County or Long Island.  With tolls and traffic and parking problems, I don't go there anymore.  (Well, I might try Staten Island for Letter Box Hybrids for souvenirs...)  Thirty miles is my usual geocaching distance.  That leaves me thirteen EarthCaches within my normal distance.  Thanks.  I'll save them for souvenirs.

[+Goldenwattle 1654]

I prefer traditionals. When travelling, if there are many traditionals available, I often ignore the earth caches, because I can't find all the caches and I prioritise the caches. Same when I am travelling I often ignore the puzzles (unless I solved them before leaving home, in which case they have then in effect become another traditional) and multis. If I visit a place with few caches, then I am likely to find whatever cache is available.

 

An example was when I visited the Chatham Islands I found all the caches (bar two which I DNFed on as they were missing - now archived). I even got a FTF on an Earth Cache there GC4R8KA, but I was disappointed it wasn't a physical cache, as the FTF didn't seem so special without an actual cache and log to sign. I had been watching a couple of traditional caches on the island without finds for months, hoping for FTFs. Someone beat me to them by a couple of weeks. Most of the caches I logged there have now been archived which is disappointing, and lots of new ones have appeared since my visit.

[+Touchstone 1024]

EC's have one distinct advantage here in the U.S., that Traditionals do not, and that is Land Manager approval.  In many Wilderness Areas, National Parks, and a few other Federally managed lands, an EC is the only thing available (with the exception of grandfathered Virts and Virt Rewards).

 

For the most part, I hunt EC's when I'm travelling, since I have a tendency to like to visit areas that restrict any other cache type for one reason or another.

[+barefootjeff 3827]

1 hour ago, Harry Dolphin said:

EarthCaches are rare.

 

Out of interest, I looked at the numbers in my region (New South Wales Central Coast, Australia) for each cache type:

• 377 Traditional
• 135 Mystery
• 50 Multi
• 9 EarthCache
• 2 Letterbox Hybrid
• 0 Virtual
• 0 Webcam
• 0 Wherigo

So yes, ECs aren't as plentiful as traditionals, mysteries and multis, but they outdo the other types by a fair margin.

[+Goldenwattle 1654]

9 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

EC's have one distinct advantage here in the U.S., that Traditionals do not, and that is Land Manager approval.  In many Wilderness Areas, National Parks, and a few other Federally managed lands, an EC is the only thing available (with the exception of grandfathered Virts and Virt Rewards).

 

For the most part, I hunt EC's when I'm travelling, since I have a tendency to like to visit areas that restrict any other cache type for one reason or another.

I visited Acadia National Park in autumn (MAGNIFICENT), and from memory, as you mention, there were only Virtuals to find. This would be a place for some Earth caches too. (I couldn't resist including a photograph of the magnificent autumn trees.)

[+arisoft 824]

3 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

i have seen in other regions earth caches neglected as just not worth the effort as the co's enjoys deleting incorrect logs rather than helping them gain more information, so to learn more.
If a Ec was placed to find, without having to be on google trying to understand what the co mean's, it may be more fun, 

 

There must be some major misunderstanding.
 

Quote

 

6. Logging an EarthCache requires visitors to undertake site-specific tasks that provide a learning opportunity related to the topic. Visitors will use the information from the cache page along with their on-site observations to perform some type of analysis. Their task-solution logs will serve as proof that cachers have visited the site.

 

 

As you see, there should be no need to use Google and logs will be deleted only if the player has not answered the questions to proof visiting the site.

 

 

 

[+STNolan 196]

3 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Also, it seems that owner of newer EC come up with more complicated (and often very subjective) questions, which makes me feel like being in school again and having to do an exam. That said, it could easily happen that I find a traditional, but only log a note (or even nothing at all) for the EC at the same location.

 

So my own two cents; I love Earth Caches. I love placing them and finding them. Part of my love for them started when I realized that as someone who frequently moves, theses are the only types of caches that I can hide AND expect to maintain longer than two to three years.

 

Naturally as I started hiding and finding more I started enjoying them more. Then add in the fact that many locations in the US don't ALLOW physical cache placement... you're left with two options 

 

1. A multi-cache with virtual stages
2. Earth caches!

Additionally what you describe as "complicated (and often very subjective) questions" is unfortunately a natural manifestation of the evolving Earth Cache guidelines which require a lesson to be specific to a location, shouldn't be "google-able" and pertaining to a unique geologic feature. Combine all these together and you start getting into the realm of difficult and convoluted questions.

 

That being said a good Earthcache is one that if you read the entire description and you stand at GZ, you should have no problem answering the questions. Ideally the cache page should explain all of the geologic information and ask you to make observations and deductions based on your reading. The general rule of thumb is that the information presented should be that which an average 14  year old can understand.

 

 While it may be more time consuming than a P&G I find it infinitely more rewarding. There is no comparison for me when you talk 98% of traditional caches compared to ECs.

 

Feel free to join us over in the EC specific thread if you have questions or you want to try and design your own!

[+Goldenwattle 1654]

A good Earthcache is unambiguous. Unfortunately I have found many which requires trying to guess what the CO meant. This might be one reason I am not keen on them. Also some ask too many questions and it feels like an exam. Please COs, make them unambiguous.

[+Harry Dolphin 1164]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Out of interest, I looked at the numbers in my region (New South Wales Central Coast, Australia) for each cache type:

• 377 Traditional
• 135 Mystery
• 50 Multi
• 9 EarthCache
• 2 Letterbox Hybrid
• 0 Virtual
• 0 Webcam
• 0 Wherigo

So yes, ECs aren't as plentiful as traditionals, mysteries and multis, but they outdo the other types by a fair margin.

 

Okay.  Ran a PQ on the nearest 1000 caches.

865 Traditional

107 Mystery

21    Multi

4      Events

2      LetterBox Hybrids

1      EarthCache

And that's less than nine miles.  The EarthCache is my nephew's.  

[+STNolan 196]

38 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

Okay.  Ran a PQ on the nearest 1000 caches.

865 Traditional

107 Mystery

21    Multi

4      Events

2      LetterBox Hybrids

1      EarthCache

And that's less than nine miles.  The EarthCache is my nephew's.  

Figured I would do the same PQ:

 

Of the 477 caches within 100 miles of home we have the following break down:

 

418 Traditional

25 Mystery

12 Multi

2 Events

1 Letterbox Hybrids

17 Earthcaches

0 Webcams

2 Virtuals

 

It's important to note that of these caches about 20 of them are located in areas that are generally "non-accessible" without a private helicopter or boat charter.

[+niraD 3291]

5 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

I see  EarthCaches are not found often

EarthCaches do not appear on Groundspeak's Geocaching app. Plus, as has been mentioned, some people save them for special EC Souvenir days. And in general, caches that require more effort from the seeker are found less often. Plus, some people just don't like EarthCaches. Plus, there are probably other reasons.

 

5 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

and some co's place them to make sure you don't understand them,

I can imagine some COs doing a poor job of explaining the material, so that normal geocachers might not understand the geology necessary to answer the questions. But it's a big leap from that to a CO intentionally making sure seekers don't understand them.

 

5 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

so many don't bother looking at them when out doing a series.

I often ignore other caches (of any type) when hiking to a specific destination cache.

 

5 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

in my area there is a race to get FTF, but not on a Earthcahes

Again, some people save them for special EC Souvenir days.

 

5 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

If a Ec was placed to find, without having to be on google trying to understand what the co mean's, it may be more fun,

As arisoft already indicated, seekers of EarthCaches are not expected to do additional research. They should be able to answer the questions based on the EC page and observations at the site.

[+CAVinoGal 656]

29 minutes ago, niraD said:

EarthCaches do not appear on Groundspeak's Geocaching app. Plus, as has been mentioned, some people save them for special EC Souvenir days. And in general, caches that require more effort from the seeker are found less often. Plus, some people just don't like EarthCaches. Plus, there are probably other reasons.

??  Perhaps for basic members, EC's don't show up?  They do show up on my app??

 

There are many cachers in my area that don't do puzzles, multi's, EC's, or much besides traditionals - too much "work".  I don't mind doing EC's - I enjoy learning, and doing EC's makes me more observant  of the area I'm hiking through or stopping to see.  

 

Some EC pages are better written than others, I will grant that.  Some are hard to understand and figure out what is being asked, others have been ambiguous, and some are simple and straightforward.  Even though I have struggled with answers on some, I rarely get feedback from a CO on whether I was right or wrong (it IS nice to get a note saying I got it right!!) and haven't had any "finds" on EC's deleted.  I can only assume I got answers close enough to correct to count, or the CO never read them.  THAT seems a shame, if they went to the effort to create the EC page, and I visited and studied and came up with answers, and then no one reads my answers...

 

I ran some numbers for caches within 10 miles of my home location:

493 Traditionals

15 Earth Caches

2 Virtuals

27 Where I Gos

18 Multis

45 Unknown (Puzzles or Challeges)

2 Letterbox

[+Goldenwattle 1654]

There are 20 Earth caches with a 20km radius of me. 8 still for me to do

More than a 1000 traditional (708 within 10km radius) 434 still  for me to find - there have been MANY published in the last year. I thought I was on top of them until then

257 Multicache 75 still for me to find

688 Mystery 474 still for me to find (don't do many of them)

2 Virtual 1still for me to find. I haven't done that one as it involves running around to take lots of photographs.

14 Wherigo (haven't done my first, as I use a GPS)

28 Letterbox 20 still for me to find

0 Webcam

Edited February 11, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+irisisleuk 56]

9 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

...some co's place them to make sure you don't understand them, ....

 

Why would a CO place a cache to make sure you don't understand them? I'm sorry, but this I find hard to believe. 

Some earthcaches are more difficult than others, just like any other type of cache. And as with any other cache you can decided whether it's worth the effort or not.

 

We enjoy the earthcaches, they make sure you take the time to read the information panel, and make sure you actually think about how and why things have happened. And if you do many earthcaches you learn a lot, especially because certain topics are used often and you start to recognize similarities all over the world. Reading the cache page before the trip can sometimes already lead to discussions, what could it be.. is it like.... And we also enjoy the photos cachers add to their logs, much more cachers take the time to place a photo with an earthcache, with an easy traditional we seldom see a nice photo of the beautiful surroundings.

 

And yes, some earthcaches are more difficult than others. Luckily most of them have a description in English, but still since English isn't our native language there are lots of words that we don't know, or better said since we've done lots of earthcache: didn't know. All these specific geology words are of course not part of a basic language set. But we've discovered many cache owners are very good at explaining the theory with lots of photos and drawings, that make it a lot easier to learn. We almost always do a lot of research before a trip and this includes reading cache pages. We check if we understand the subject and the questions and if not we translate and search for info in our own language. It's like preparing for a difficult multi caches where you have to make sure you have all your tools in place, have read the cache page so you know if you need any special codes etc.   And if it is too difficult we just skip the cache, but if the photos show us something special we probably would still visit the spot.

 

With respect to your question: if we would go to a location where there is an earthcache and a traditional at the same spot, our first choice would be the earthcache. Not just to learn about geology, but also because they make sure we take the time to really see the environment. With other caches you can end up being too focused on finding the cache, you totally miss the real special things. And if the questions are too difficult, or too time consuming (doesn't happen often btw), we'll look for the traditional just to mark our visit to the special location. Unless of course the traditional cache is suitable for trackables and I want to move some, or if it is a unique cache, specially made, then both caches will be logged!

 

 

[+baer2006 788]

6 hours ago, STNolan said:

Additionally what you describe as "complicated (and often very subjective) questions" is unfortunately a natural manifestation of the evolving Earth Cache guidelines which require a lesson to be specific to a location, shouldn't be "google-able" and pertaining to a unique geologic feature. Combine all these together and you start getting into the realm of difficult and convoluted questions.

Thanks for the explanation. I suspected something like that, because there is a noticeable difference in complexity between older ECs and more recent (the last 4-5 years or so) ones.

 

I've never been a really big fan of ECs, but what put me firmly on the track of "I don't have to log every EC I visit as find" was one specific example. One of the EC's question was like "At WP #2 you see {geological phenomenon A}. Describe structure and color. Could this in the future become {geological phenomenon B}?" I had a hard time with this, because after reading the EC listing back and forth several times (and also some Wiki articles), my best guess was that the location already is an example of {geological phenomenon B}. In the end, my answer was like "I don't know what you mean. To me, this already looks like {geological phenomenon B}". And the CO replied "Well done! You're right, and the question is in fact a trick question to make you really think about the subject". Sure, I got the smiley, but I thought "Trick question? WTF!?! Is that the new standard for ECs?" I admit that this cache was probably an exception, but still ... whenever I see an EC with a very long description and lots of questions, I remember this example and think twice about going for another EC find .

[+STNolan 196]

16 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

the CO replied "Well done! You're right, and the question is in fact a trick question to make you really think about the subject".

 

 

That hurts me to read that. Why, why would you do that??

[+arisoft 824]

21 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

"Well done! You're right, and the question is in fact a trick question to make you really think about the subject". Sure, I got the smiley, but I thought "Trick question? WTF!?!

 

I have seen an EC which have a "trick question". Without visiting the site your answers from Google and Wikipedia will be absolutely wrong. You need to visit the site to answer correctly.

I think that the intention is to check that you have visited the site and not only got the lesson from the cache page.

[+STNolan 196]

15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I have seen an EC which have a "trick question". Without visiting the site your answers from Google and Wikipedia will be absolutely wrong. You need to visit the site to answer correctly.

I think that the intention is to check that you have visited the site and not only got the lesson from the cache page.

 

I think there is a difference between questions designed so that you have to be at GZ to answer them, and questions  that are designed to intentionally trick people. YMMV

[+arisoft 824]

24 minutes ago, STNolan said:

 

I think there is a difference between questions designed so that you have to be at GZ to answer them, and questions  that are designed to intentionally trick people. YMMV

 

We need more examples to make the decision whether the question is tricky or not.

Edited February 11, 2019 by arisoft

[+baer2006 788]

37 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

We need more examples to make the decision whether the question is tricky or not.

Isn't there a difference between a "tricky question" and a "trick question"? English is not my first language, and I could therefore be wrong, but in my understanding, it's this:

- Tricky question: a question, which might have a non-obvious twist in it. E.g. "What's the nearest star from Earth?", where an answer like "Alpha Centauri" is wrong because you forgot our own sun.

- Trick question: Question which is intentionally misleading. E.g. "When did Coventry City last win the FA cup?", when the answer is that they never won the FA cup at all (courtesy of Monty Python ).

 

That said, I have only a problem with trick questions in ECs, not to much with tricky ones.

Edited February 11, 2019 by baer2006

[+JimJinks 15]

1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

"When did Coventry City last win the FA cup?"

 

1987

[+irisisleuk 56]

1 hour ago, JimJinks said:

 

1987

17 years after the question was first broadcasted...

[+hzoi 1577]

I enjoy earthcaches.  I've had fun writing up a few so that I can teach what's hopefully not an overly complicated lesson about something.

 

As far as logging earthcaches, I aim for a happy medium. 

 

I like for earthcaches to be better put together than some of the older ones that got through when the guidelines were pretty loose.  So while I have logged a few easy "what type of waterfall is this" and "what magnitude is this spring," I look at those on the same level as a parking lot micro.  Yes, I will do them if I am in the area, but I will not seek them out.

 

On the other hand, there are some very complex earthcaches out there, with multiple stages requiring complex observations.  I treat these similar to long multi-stage multicaches: if I can complete these, I will try, but if I think it's going to hijack my entire day, I'd rather go for something easier.

 

That's for my player account.  I'm also a geoaware.  (Something I'd kept on the down low until now, as I wanted at least six months on the job before saying anything about it.)  It wasn't until I started reviewing that I saw how much trouble players appear to have in clearing the threshold of what makes something geologically unique.  And then in keeping the lesson simple enough to make it accessible for folks -- how to make the point without making it, in the words of @J Grouchy, a "homework cache."

 

I think that perhaps people think they NEED to have complicated lessons and logging questions in order to have a viable earthcache.  And that's not the case.  I think the hard part is actually taking a scientific lesson and then rewording it so that it is accessible to folks without advanced degrees.  I'd like to think I've gotten pretty good at that aspect with the earthcaches we own, since part of my job over the last two decades has been to take advanced legal topics like the law of armed conflict and break it down for non-legal audiences such that everyone can understand it, from the college graduate in charge of the company down to the brand new private.

[+hzoi 1577]

5 hours ago, irisisleuk said:

15 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

...some co's place them to make sure you don't understand them, ....

 

Why would a CO place a cache to make sure you don't understand them? I'm sorry, but this I find hard to believe. 

 

I'm wondering if this is aimed at a particular CO, who was rather vocal about earthcaches -- and who has now gotten banned from the forums and so can't respond.  But I could be wrong.

[+STNolan 196]

5 minutes ago, hzoi said:

That's for my player account.  I'm also a geoaware.  (Something I'd kept on the down low until now, as I wanted at least six months on the job before saying anything about it.) 

 

Congrats Hzoi! That's awesome! 

 

Now I need to take another trip to the Southeast so I can work with you. I seem to inadvertently be collecting "GeoAwares" in my ECs.

[+arisoft 824]

2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Isn't there a difference between a "tricky question" and a "trick question"? English is not my first language, and I could therefore be wrong, but in my understanding, it's this:

- Tricky question: a question, which might have a non-obvious twist in it. E.g. "What's the nearest star from Earth?", where an answer like "Alpha Centauri" is wrong because you forgot our own sun.

- Trick question: Question which is intentionally misleading. E.g. "When did Coventry City last win the FA cup?", when the answer is that they never won the FA cup at all (courtesy of Monty Python ).

 

That said, I have only a problem with trick questions in ECs, not to much with tricky ones.

 

I can not tell the difference.

 

I have seen an EC which asked about properties which do not exist on site, but if you try to guess the answer, you obviously try to "find" them and lie about your findings.

 

In another EC there was an ambiguous question: " Describe shortly what is the contemporary explanation given to the boulder's long journey. "

To answer correctly you need to guess what the CO had in mind nothing less

 

[+JL_HSTRE 581]

Many cachers only seek Traditionals so those will always get more finds than a similarly located non-Traditional.

 

I generally prefer Virtuals and Earthcaches to physical caches, but it's not a gurantee. Generally, the former are educational and nearly all at some interesting feature. There's also no container for my half-blind self to potentially fail to find.

 

However, some Earthcaches are very bland and not very informative. Others are just too darn complicated. (And I'm not talking about Earthcaches that are very extensive with lots of stops and questions; like an epic multi those are often very well done, just time consuming). In recent years I've encountered several newer Earthcaches that I've walked away from or come very close to doing so because there simply wasn't adequate explanation for me to be able to answer the questions. The features I was being asked to identify weren't clearly visible or I was being asked to identify a rock without any signage or cache page details providing the information to do so.

 

The increasingly stringent emphasis on geology (and nothing else) and observations, including questions based on signage being made off-limits, has reached a point where I may never again hide an Earthcache because it's too difficult to come up with acceptable questions and the caches themselves stop being enjoyable (or even possible) for me to find. GeoAware seems especially infatuated with "Why do you think X is happening here?" questions, which opens up arguments with COs (and the guidelines now want COs to basically treat any attempt to answer the question as acceptable). I want questions that have clear right and wrong answers.

[+Goldenwattle 1654]

6 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I want questions that have clear right and wrong answers.

The best. Tick.

[+arisoft 824]

16 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

guidelines now want COs to basically treat any attempt to answer the question as acceptable

 

This seems the current interpretation. The only reason to answer is to give proof that you visited the site not that you have learned anything.

 

16 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

there simply wasn't adequate explanation for me to be able to answer the questions. The features I was being asked to identify weren't clearly visible

 

In one earthcache there was a question about how deep is the layer of soil over the bedrock at the ground zero. I answered that I will need an excavator to answer the question.

Edited February 11, 2019 by arisoft

[+hzoi 1577]

1 hour ago, STNolan said:

Congrats Hzoi! That's awesome! 

 

thanks! 

[+J Grouchy 742]

17 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

I see  EarthCaches are not found often and some co's place them to make sure you don't understand them, so many don't bother looking at them when out doing a series.
An example of this is a trad cache at the same location is found many times, but the EC is found few times .
in my area there is a race to get FTF, but not on a Earthcahes
i have seen in other regions earth caches neglected as just not worth the effort as the co's enjoys deleting incorrect logs rather than helping them gain more information, so to learn more.
If a Ec was placed to find, without having to be on google trying to understand what the co mean's, it may be more fun, 
if i had an earth cache, i would like logs like this :-
great location, the rock was wet and shiney, amazing shapes,. the water has created an unusual shape, its rough and so on - fun fun 

 

I just don't find Earthcaches all that interesting or fun to do.  If I take an interest in the subject matter, I don't want to read about it on a cache page.  I'd rather read the on-site information boards/signs/pamphlets, etc.  Not a fan of virtuals in general, but I find earthcaches the more tedious of the two types (between ECs and standard Virtuals).

[+Crow-T-Robot 153]

I like to use Earthcaches as a tour guide when I'm traveling but rarely log one now.

 

I enjoyed doing E/C's when there was a photo requirement and then had optional logging tasks. It wasn't that I just wanted to take a picture and then log the find and skip on the tasks. It was more that then, the tasks seemed more...fun and intuitive. Once it became mandatory that an Earthcache should require performing a task to log, it seemed like the tasks became way more convoluted, tedious and complex and the fun aspect went with it.

 

As others have already said, it became more like homework and some CO's have decided to make you jump through numerous "unfun" hoops to log the cache and it seemed less about teaching about geology and more about a CO being a control freak.

 

So, I just go visit whatever is being highlighted by the listing and skip logging it.

[+humboldt flier 76]

Man Oh Man:

 

       You have struck a nerve with me .....  I have run into some Earth Cache Owners who seem to want a the work involved to rise to Masters or Phd. level.

 

       To those "within the field" answers may seem self evident, however, to those of us seeking to be educated about a feature without working on a Masters or Phd many Earth Caches are burdensome rather than educational in nature.

 

      To answer your question >>>>>>>>>> I rarely do an Earth Cache anymore.

 

For Whatever It Is Worth:   I have logged 179 Earth Caches >>>>> about 15% have been struggles to discern what the owner was attempting to teach me.

Edited February 11, 2019 by humboldt flier

[+humboldt flier 76]

29 minutes ago, Crow-T-Robot said:

I like to use Earthcaches as a tour guide when I'm traveling but rarely log one now.

 

I enjoyed doing E/C's when there was a photo requirement and then had optional logging tasks. It wasn't that I just wanted to take a picture and then log the find and skip on the tasks. It was more that then, the tasks seemed more...fun and intuitive. Once it became mandatory that an Earthcache should require performing a task to log, it seemed like the tasks became way more convoluted, tedious and complex and the fun aspect went with it.

 

As others have already said, it became more like homework and some CO's have decided to make you jump through numerous "unfun" hoops to log the cache and it seemed less about teaching about geology and more about a CO being a control freak.

 

So, I just go visit whatever is being highlighted by the listing and skip logging it.

 

 

OHHHHH YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS to the "control freak" aspect of this post.

 

Dear CO you may or may not be an expert in the field >> please teach us something rather than rubbing our noses in your advanced degrees.

 

**(tongue in cheek ... some of us "are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, however, we do like to learn something new")**

 

BTW I know the metaphor is mixed>

Edited February 11, 2019 by humboldt flier

[+Viajero Perdido 873]

Yeah, it's the battle-of-wits aspect I'm happy to do without.

 

I once pointed out a factual error in an EC writeup to the owner - a bit of subject matter I remember clearly from a university course + employment directly related to the EC subject - but it was ignored.

 

Shrug.  Next.

 

You are getting geology lessons from lay people.  Welcome to the internet.

 

Edited February 11, 2019 by Viajero Perdido

[+GrateBear 45]

I'll do a EC if it's not too complicated. but when it's one that requires almost a dissertation, I pass it by.  Prefer Trads and Virtuals.

[+J Grouchy 742]

1 hour ago, Viajero Perdido said:

 

I once pointed out a factual error in an EC writeup to the owner - a bit of subject matter I remember clearly from a university course + employment directly related to the EC subject - but it was ignored.

 

 

Guess I don't really know the process...but I was under the impression that ECs were vetted prior to publication by folks who were well-versed in the subject matter.

[+CAVinoGal 656]

8 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

I just don't find Earthcaches all that interesting or fun to do.

 

Some (most of the ones I've done) are interesting, some are fun, some are memorable, some are none of the above!  I've learned much of our local geology thanks to several EC's in a nearby park, and I still have a few more to do!  Hiking in Yosemite and doing EC's there really made me aware of sights I might have missed if we were just hiking, or if I'd seen them, not known what they were or the reason why that feature looked as it did.

 

Dropping a stick or leaf in a stream, timing its passage to another spot, and calculating it's speed (and so the speed of the stream) at the time of my visit is a bit more math than I feel is necessary.  I'd rather observe if a stream is deep or shallow, a torrent or a trickle, or somewhere in between; more subjective but does sort of prove you were THERE.  I've skipped over EC's that want a lot of calculations - I prefer a visit to GZ, or maybe a few points along a trail, where I can take photos and make observations and get my answers from the photos and cache page info, then go home and put it all together to submit answers.  

 

Asking which one I'd rather log (getting back to the OP!) depends on my caching goal for that day, or week - - some days I need a quick and easy find of any kind ot fill a spot on my grid or meet a personal goal.  Other days are focused on EC's. or non-traditionals, and the day is all about the hike and the locale.  The day in Yosemite we did a virtual and two or three EC's and no trads.  My first EC souvenir, we hiked the local park and got 7 EC's and 3 trads.  

 

You don't have to find them all!  And it's supposed to be an enjoyable hobby.  Enjoy, and cache on!

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club 148]

Would I like to log a traditional or an Earthcache?

 

Why yes, yes I would. It's certainly better than working!!!