Adventure Labs and Geocaching video: Similarities and Differences

[+Max and 99]

I saw this great youtube video about ALs and debated whether to post this in an existing thread or start a new one. I think the video warrants a new thread. It talks about the similarities and differences between geocaching and Adventure Labs. I learned some new things, like indoor geocaches must have an outdoor stage, and AL physical stages (which are no longer allowed?), have no distance requirement from geocaches. It makes sense, I just never knew that!

 

Let the discussion begin.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOm9mHLLU4M&feature=youtu.be

 

[+Lynx Humble]

8 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I saw this great youtube video about ALs and debated whether to post this in an existing thread or start a new one. I think the video warrants a new thread. It talks about the similarities and differences between geocaching and Adventure Labs. I learned some new things, like indoor geocaches must have an outdoor stage, and AL physical stages (which are no longer allowed?), have no distance requirement from geocaches. It makes sense, I just never knew that!

 

Let the discussion begin.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOm9mHLLU4M&feature=youtu.be

 

Great video.

 

AL physical stages have been banned somewhere last year.

 

For the notifications is someone knows the radius? It seems really small. I got for 2 for under 10km but nothing for one at 31km.

[+ecanderson]

I never new that Waymarking had multi's until ...

 

[+dprovan]

Interesting video, well presented. I find the question somewhat off the mark, though. Many, if not most, of the things he claims are differences are really just missing integration. For whatever reason, GS set up ALs on the side, making them not part of geocaching, but those aren't fundamental differences because they could be added if they decide they like that and want to bring them into the fold. Even the missing distance requirements make perfect sense because you don't want AL stops to block out real caches when most people aren't paying attention to ALs and can't see where they are.

 

Having said that, I'll also concede that observing that GS *could* integrate ALs better doesn't mean they ever will, so I don't mean to dismiss all those differences entirely. They are, undeniably, differences currently.

 

Also, the question "are they a different thing?" doesn't actually lead to a specific conclusion. I think a very similar argument could be made that EarthCaches are different than other geocaches if they weren't yet integrated. So I don't think the question is so much whether they're different but whether we want them to be treated differently as things go on. I don't really have an opinion on that. I enjoyed ALs fine, but I can take them or leave them. I don't think they add anything in particular, but I don't think they get in the way of anything, either.

[+thebruce0]

I think conceptually they can be integrated - but the technical differences on implementation are staggering.

Right now "geocaches" (all existing types) are based on numerous properties per listing plus logs associated with them. Stats are generated based on the listings associated with those Find logs, and that's why Adventure Lab finds are only included in any display of an overall "find" count (as opposed to totals generated from geocaching statistics).

 

To bring ALs over properly into geocaching, they'd need to either finagle a bridge between cache listings to adventure labs with default properties and move the logs to be associated with those listings rather than the ALs, or rework the AL system to be entirely integrated as some geocache type (new or existing) and move existing logs over to those.  Neither way I can see as a simple fix.  I don't think they'll get any more integrated than they already for some time to come... 

 

They were developed as a very technically distinct 'thing', even though the concept itself is very similar to existing 'virtual' cache types.

[+barefootjeff]

29 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I don't think they'll get any more integrated than they already for some time to come...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently the only integration is that correctly-answered AL locations count as geocaching finds, everything else is completely separate. Given the very different nature of how ALs are managed and played, probably about the only likely integration would be to display them on the geocaching map and make the descriptions and activity logs visible on the website. I would really prefer to see the AL scoring kept completely separate from geocaching.

[+thebruce0]

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently the only integration is that correctly-answered AL locations count as geocaching finds, everything else is completely separate.

Yep.

 

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

that's why Adventure Lab finds are only included in any display of an overall "find" count (as opposed to totals generated from geocaching statistics).

 

 

Conceptually they're a lovechild of existing cache styles; like multi/virtual/Wherigo (multiple virtual stages completed via something offsite). Technically they're very different (not a gc listing, thus no properties, and no geocaching Found It log).

[+ecanderson]

I'm still back to my previous comment.

What's the difference between an AL and some sort of a multi-Waymark that causes credit to the geocaching find count?

IMHO, the AL concept should have been added to Waymarking, adding a 'multi' aspect to that game instead.

[+Max and 99]

3 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

I'm still back to my previous comment.

What's the difference between an AL and some sort of a multi-Waymark that causes credit to the geocaching find count?

IMHO, the AL concept should have been added to Waymarking, adding a 'multi' aspect to that game instead.

Waytours.

[+ecanderson]

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

Waytours.

I like it.  Wish they'd asked your opinion before they started these!

[+funkymunkyzone]

On 9/3/2020 at 3:25 AM, Max and 99 said:

AL physical stages (which are no longer allowed?), have no distance requirement from geocaches.

 

When physical stages were allowed for ALs, they did have to be >161m from any geocache, and any AL with physical stages had to be reviewed by a reviewer. I remember reading that in the rules.

 

I suspect part of the reason for stopping having physicsl stages for ALs might have been limitations in the ability to review geocache and AL physical stage locations versus existing AL physical stages (effectively the reverse check). But Im guessing on this point, based on the lack of integration between ALs and normal geocaching.

[+funkymunkyzone]

16 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

When physical stages were allowed for ALs, they did have to be >161m from any geocache, and any AL with physical stages had to be reviewed by a reviewer. I remember reading that in the rules.

 

I suspect part of the reason for stopping having physicsl stages for ALs might have been limitations in the ability to review geocache and AL physical stage locations versus existing AL physical stages (effectively the reverse check). But Im guessing on this point, based on the lack of integration between ALs and normal geocaching.

 

See post 7 in this thread for how the proximity checking was to be handled (kind of a hack because of the aforementioned lack of integration)