"Virtual" Adventure Lab

[+JL_HSTRE]

4 hours ago, HHL said:

 

How are you able to download the Labs into GSAK?

[+JL_HSTRE]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It's been recently suggested that my higher terrain bushland hides are killing off the game here and I should instead be putting out trails of quick and easy roadside micros because that's what today's players and the newcomers who've been drawn in through phone-based gaming want.

 

I can see how lots of high difficulty hides might hurt geocaching because new geocachers will perceive it as too difficult. However, whether your bushland hides are easy or difficult they're not taking up space that would otherwise be used for hides.

 

However, with virtual ALs, whether they are "lame" is a moot point.

 

1. They explicitly violate the AL Guidelines.

 

2. They clearly violate the fundamental location-based principle of geocaching. Even the lamest, easiest Traditional makes you go somewhere. No matter how much time you might spend at home trying to solve a puzzle, in the end you still have to go somewhere to get the final container. Even Virtuals and Webcams and Events and Locationaless that involve no container and no physical log still involve a location where you must go. +5 from my couch is fundamentally against geocaching.

 

[+HHL]

5 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

How are you able to download the Labs into GSAK?

I use this (ToU conform) macro:

ExportAdventuresLight.gsk (click here)

 

Hans

Edited December 23, 2022 by HHL

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, Team Canary said:

That's not quite what I said or meant.

 

Okay, thanks, but I still think my conclusion about the shift in the game towards quick and easy finds is valid. Looking at the Central Coast caches published this year, the stand-out leader in finds is a road-side micro Adventure Lab bonus in Wyong with 39 thus far. By contrast, the 1.5/ 3.5 Robinson Cascades traditional, published in April, has had just two finds. A decade ago, a cache like that would've had people lining up to sign the log on the day after publication, as they were when I did the Wyong AL, instead it was six months between my FTF and the 2TF.

 

Virtual ALs like the ones described would certainly be a quick way to knock off each stage of the Signal's Labyrinth promotion, so it's pretty clear what sort of caching activity is being promoted by that (and it isn't wading through waist-high water at the base of a cascade). Maybe that's why I'm finding the promotion so difficult to get excited about.

[+dprovan]

On 12/22/2022 at 2:43 PM, HHL said:

On 12/22/2022 at 2:36 PM, dprovan said:

but then I realized there couldn't be any other ALs in the area because they're all here, right?

No, as there is no minimum distance (like we have for geocaches) for ALs.

I was saying that it looked as if all the ALs allocated to the area must be in these ALs, so there couldn't be any used for anything else.

[+dprovan]

On 12/22/2022 at 2:56 PM, Max and 99 said:

One impact these had on me: I drove two hours for new ALs, with plans to find some other geocaches while there. I arrive, spend a lot of time walking around the area, trying to figure out where the source of the location answer was. Maybe the coords were just off? After finding nothing, talking to people in the area, and then the staff, I figured out these were virtual adventure labs. There's absolutely no reason for me to drive out there and nothing for me to see. Huge waste of time. It never occurred to me to check the geofencing, as I made the assumption there was something to see there that would give me the location answers, but I'm working on that. 

OK, thanks. I see. I was assuming you saw the mass and questioned it before going to look for them. I hadn't considered the possibility of thinking it looked like fun...only to discover it had nothing to do with the location after you went to all the trouble to go to the location.

[+dprovan]

On 12/22/2022 at 3:42 PM, barefootjeff said:

I guess it depends on what you see the purpose of the game to be. If it's about scoring quick-fire points in a play-at-home phone game then fine, but if it's supposed to be about getting outdoors and visiting interesting places then perhaps not. Maybe it doesn't matter much to an individual but it does have a longer term impact on the community and their expectations.

So you're worried it will kill of ALs? I was assuming people complaining about these were anti-ALs making the point that this proves ALs, in general, are lame. Thanks for making me aware of opposite position: that ALs are good, but these make them look bad.

On 12/22/2022 at 3:42 PM, barefootjeff said:

It's been recently suggested that my higher terrain bushland hides are killing off the game here and I should instead be putting out trails of quick and easy roadside micros because that's what today's players and the newcomers who've been drawn in through phone-based gaming want. Maybe that's true, and the distribution of find logs in this region suggests it is, but I think it's a sad shift in the spirit and intent of the game.

I can't imagine how anyone could think that a rare and out of the way kind of hide would prevent mundane hides, but this sounds like another topic.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

So you're worried it will kill of ALs? I was assuming people complaining about these were anti-ALs making the point that this proves ALs, in general, are lame. Thanks for making me aware of opposite position: that ALs are good, but these make them look bad.

 

My concern is that those, and others like them that will undoubtedly come along, will further drive the perception of the game away from its roots in getting outdoors, stretching those arms and legs, stimulating the mind and visiting interesting places. There are some ALs that still do that, and most I've done I've enjoyed, but there's a slippery slope forming here that's taking the game well away from where old diehards like me would like to see it go. But who am I to argue with progress?

 

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

I can't imagine how anyone could think that a rare and out of the way kind of hide would prevent mundane hides, but this sounds like another topic.

 

The problem that triggered the comment I responded to, rightly or wrongly, is that those out-of-the-way hides that are an anathema to visitors and newcomers aren't rare, instead they've become the norm around here. These are this year's new hides in my local area:

 

 

Note the absence of any quick and easy urban 1.5/1.5 trads. I can't remember when the last one of those was hidden around here; there was one a few years back at Ettalong Beach but it never lasted more than a couple of months between mugglings and was eventually archived by its owner. There are only a handful of players hiding caches around here these days and the only one putting out easy trads hides them mostly up to the north-east around the Terrigal area and even then he doesn't put out very many.

 

So it's not that our higher-T bushland hides are blocking low-DT P&Gs, it's just that the two or three active COs here are spending all their time creating more bushland hides that only those same diehards want to look for.

Edited December 25, 2022 by barefootjeff

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The problem that triggered the comment I responded to, rightly or wrongly, is that those out-of-the-way hides that are an anathema to visitors and newcomers aren't rare, instead they've become the norm around here.

I suppose I meant they're rare broadly without worrying about how common they are in your area. Regardless of how many such hides you have, anyone that's complaining about them could, themselves, without blinking, put ten times as many of the cache they're suggesting your hide. So it's not your hides that are the problem, but the hides the people complaining aren't putting out. I don't think this is splitting hairs; I really think it's the only logical way to look at it.

[+barefootjeff]

18 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I suppose I meant they're rare broadly without worrying about how common they are in your area. Regardless of how many such hides you have, anyone that's complaining about them could, themselves, without blinking, put ten times as many of the cache they're suggesting your hide. So it's not your hides that are the problem, but the hides the people complaining aren't putting out. I don't think this is splitting hairs; I really think it's the only logical way to look at it.

 

It was more an observation than a complaint, that there's nothing around here for visitors and newcomers who are only interested in making quick finds. Maybe the answer is a bunch of quick-and-easy ALs; there'd have to be a lot of locals sitting on credits since all PMs got them earlier this year but, locally, there have been only two appear (one mine and that's not especially quick-and-easy).

[+JL_HSTRE]

Looks like the FL lab geoart I posted about previously has been taken down. Thank you, @Geocaching HQ! Will the problem of similar airport caches also be addressed?

[+bluelamb03]

On 12/29/2022 at 12:54 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

Looks like the FL lab geoart I posted about previously has been taken down. Thank you, @Geocaching HQ! Will the problem of similar airport caches also be addressed?

What?? HQ has actually noticed that Ad.Labs have become the 'lame virtuals' that they once complained about?! 
Just remove the Adventure Lab from peoples 'find count' and the problem will go away. This abuse is only happening because people want to pump their numbers.
After all I have found many Waymarks over the years, physically visiting a location, and they don't appear as 'finds', why should Adventure Labs inflate my find count?

[+Gill & Tony]

14 hours ago, bluelamb03 said:

What?? HQ has actually noticed that Ad.Labs have become the 'lame virtuals' that they once complained about?! 
Just remove the Adventure Lab from peoples 'find count' and the problem will go away. This abuse is only happening because people want to pump their numbers.
After all I have found many Waymarks over the years, physically visiting a location, and they don't appear as 'finds', why should Adventure Labs inflate my find count?

Why do you care about people wanting to "pump their numbers"?  How does it impact you?  If someone does 100 adventures and gets 500 finds, does that hurt you in any way?

 

If you don't want adventure labs to "inflate your find count", don't do them.  Nobody is forcing you to do them.

 

I don't like waymarks.  I don't do them, but I know other folk do like them so I don't bitch and moan about them.   I just ignore them

 

 

 

 

[+bluelamb03]

On 1/12/2023 at 4:35 AM, Gill & Tony said:

Why do you care about people wanting to "pump their numbers"?  How does it impact you?  If someone does 100 adventures and gets 500 finds, does that hurt you in any way?

 

 

Why do I care about people pumping their numbers? Have you seen the Adventure Labs in question here? You can get your "500 finds" in less than an hour and never leave your parked car. Is that what Adventure Labs are all about? Sitting in your car answering multiple choice questions? 

And why would anyone want to do this? What's their motive I wonder......

You don't like waymarks? If Waymarks appeared as finds in your stats page would you be running around visiting them? 

Just keep Adventure Labs separate from Geocaching, just like Waymarks, and all this drama goes away.

[+thebruce0]

"It doesn't affect you" can be argued to apply to many aspects of the game, if not all. But if that's the reason for turning a blind eye, then why have rules at all? Games, activities, hobbies, have expectations, structures, guidelines, and/or strict rules. ALs have an intent, and they do have guidelines, they just don't have a review process. Caring about things following the expectations of that thing is not a Bad Thing, it's an effort to ensure that things have meaning and purpose. It's why people are drawn to that thing - that it doesn't mean nothing.

 

The more Adventure Labs have a weaker form, weaker frame slack boundaries and expectations, the less generally fun it is, the general value it has for participating; because then what's even the point? Sure you can ignore everything everybody else does, but then why not just go for a walk and jot down things you see along the way, giving yourself "points" if you want if nothing really matters?  Nope, there's a service, there's an app, and anyone who uses that service and app can't demand that no one care what they do. And caring doesn't mean one is making it competitive or being personally affected by other people's actions. It means one cares about that thing being what it says it is!  Caring is showing we don't want them to go the way of Geocaching Challenges because the value of participating dropped below any desirable threshold.

[+Gill & Tony]

7 hours ago, bluelamb03 said:

 

Why do I care about people pumping their numbers? Have you seen the Adventure Labs in question here? You can get your "500 finds" in less than an hour and never leave your parked car. Is that what Adventure Labs are all about? Sitting in your car answering multiple choice questions? 

And why would anyone want to do this? What's their motive I wonder......

You don't like waymarks? If Waymarks appeared as finds in your stats page would you be running around visiting them? 

Just keep Adventure Labs separate from Geocaching, just like Waymarks, and all this drama goes away.

Have I seen the Adventures in question?  Yes.  They did not meet the guidelines for adventures and so Groundspeak removed them.  Problem solved.   

 

No, I would not go running around visiting waymarks.  I use GSAK for my stats and GSAK would let me count waymarks in my stats.   I found a few before I realised that they weren't for me and those few do not appear in my stats.

 

Adventures are different from caches.  Lab caches are caches.

 

 

[+thebruce0]

1 minute ago, Gill & Tony said:

Adventures are different from caches.  Lab caches are caches.

 

mmm... yep and nope again. Lab caches are not caches, in any technical way.

[+Gill & Tony]

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

"It doesn't affect you" can be argued to apply to many aspects of the game, if not all. But if that's the reason for turning a blind eye, then why have rules at all? Games, activities, hobbies, have expectations, structures, guidelines, and/or strict rules. ALs have an intent, and they do have guidelines, they just don't have a review process. Caring about things following the expectations of that thing is not a Bad Thing, it's an effort to ensure that things have meaning and purpose. It's why people are drawn to that thing - that it doesn't mean nothing.

I completely agree with this, but there is a difference between someone breaking the rules and someone following the rules.   Do I care if a team goes caching, splits up and finds lots of caches, signing each others'' names?   No, because the caches are there waiting to be found.   The fact that not everyone found every cache may be shonky, but there is no reason for me to care.  Their approach isn't for me, but doesn't affect me.   Do I care if someone logs finds on caches which aren't there?  Yes, because that is against the rules and it can affect me.

 

 

[+Gill & Tony]

5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

mmm... yep and nope again. Lab caches are not caches, in any technical way.

Groundspeak says they are.  You say they aren't.  Hmm...  Who to believe?

 

I agree that they are a half-hearted mongrel of a cache and Groundspeak should make them mainstream, but they are caches.

[+thebruce0]

6 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

Groundspeak says they are.

Where? By the label "Lab cache"? We're not talking labels, we're talking functionality, inclusion, practical application, how they're enjoyed and consumed and displayed for the world to see. All different.

 

8 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

I completely agree with this, but there is a difference between someone breaking the rules and someone following the rules.   Do I care if a team goes caching, splits up and finds lots of caches, signing each others'' names?

Nor I. I used to. But not any more. It doesn't bother me because if the cache was found, and the cachers are caching "under the group name", then the rule was not broken. I DO care when people log false finds, or unverified finds, because that can and does affect other people.

Anyway, this is not about etiquette for finding geocaches, because Adventures and their Locations are not geocaches in any way shape or form, other than the name "Lab cache" and that minimal of overlapping properties patchworked into the general geocaching statistics.

Back to "Virtual" Adventure Labs

 

ETA: To reiterate - I am not anti-Adventures in the slightest.

Edited January 13, 2023 by thebruce0

[+Gill & Tony]

6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Where? By the label "Lab cache"? We're not talking labels, we're talking functionality, inclusion, practical application, how they're enjoyed and consumed and displayed for the world to see. All different.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=144&pgid=948

Item 1.2  says

 

Adventure Lab Caches are included in these statistics:

   Cache Types.

[+thebruce0]

As a technical exception, just like smiley count, region, date/time - as I said, "overlapping properties patchworked into the general geocaching statistics", even though they are not quantified as a cache type like geocache listings are which include the hard property "Cache Type", they are added to the statistics because they are a separate thing they decided to include in that list of things. They are not shown on any geocaching search function because they are not geocache listings to be searched. Because they are not geocaches.

[+Gill & Tony]

12 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

As a technical exception, just like smiley count, region, date/time - as I said, "overlapping properties patchworked into the general geocaching statistics", even though they are not quantified as a cache type like geocache listings are which include the hard property "Cache Type", they are added to the statistics because they are a separate thing they decided to include in that list of things. They are not shown on any geocaching search function because they are not geocache listings to be searched. Because they are not geocaches.

Lets go back to the very first mention if Lab Caches, a Groundspeak blog from 2014, long before Adventures were a thing

 

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2014/01/iheartgeocachingfaq/#:~:text=What is a Lab Cache,shape the future of geocaching.

 

A Lab Cache is an experimental and extremely rare geocache type. These geocaches are a way for us to innovate and test new ideas to make geocaching even better. By creating and finding a Lab Cache, you’re helping shape the future of geocaching.

 

 

[+thebruce0]

Again, semantics. It's a label. They are not geocaches. They are not geocache listings. They are not stored in the same manner. They do not act in the same manner. They do not use the same framework. Any overlap is an exception programmed to have them appear within the geocaching umbrella wherever their presence can be fit snugly with the geocaching hobby. Smiley count. GPS coordinates. Date/time. Region. The label (which is a leftover of the experimental stage). etc. You're arguing name. I'm argument substance. Adventures are not geocaches. Adventure Locations, aka "Lab Caches" are not geocaches.  They are considered a cache type in the context of display within statistics. They are considered "finds" in the context of smiley count. They are considered... considered... considered...

 

I got a few extra smileys today. One of them was because I answered the question "How many children could play on this playground equipment during covid?" The answer was 0.  That. Is not. A Geocache.

 

Way back when they started long before "Adventures" grouped them together, I got a handful of smileys at a mega event or two for helping cache builders test ideas for concepts for geocaches they were working on without having to publish a new cache listing due to proximity to others published nearby. Anyone who helped by solving it and providing a confirmation code instead of signing a logbook (or maybe in addition to) was rewarded a bonus smiley and recorded as +1 Lab Cache.  Still. Not. A Geocache.

Edited January 15, 2023 by thebruce0

[+Gill & Tony]

Right.  A geocache is only a geocache if it meets your definition of a geocache, regardless of the opinion of the operators of the listing service.

 

OK, got it now.

[+Team Canary]

14 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

Right.  A geocache is only a geocache if it meets your definition of a geocache, regardless of the opinion of the operators of the listing service.

 

OK, got it now.

 

While I agree they're not geocaches, that doesn't make me right.

 

You do you and I'll do me.