Earthcache history/guidelines through the years.

[BlueRajah]

I was geoawareusa2 for more than a decade. I agree with most of brcross95's thoughts.  Have things slowed.  Yes, in many instances because the easy ones are gone, and people can't publish an identical one a mile away.  I saw many submissions that were identical and sometimes even copied earthcaches nearby. 

 

I thought i would give some perspective and history. 

Originally, some first earthcaches were changed from virtuals to Earthcaches.  After that point, you filled out a page on a website and sent in the information to the Geological Society of America.  Geoaware would then review it, create a page and publish it and adopt it out.  Over time that changed, but every earthcache from inception until around October 2008 was reviewed by him, and in 2009 he added one other from his office at the Geologic Society of America to help handle the surge.  This resulted in very long publishing times (months after submission), and little communication.  Many caches were published from this era that the GSA has regretted because they were rushed doing this at work and doing their full time jobs.  There were many requirements that might seem really odd.  You had to submit your cache page in English (because only those few reviewed them), he emailed your contact at a National Park to verify permission was granted, etc.

 

In 2009/10 we saw a surge of reviewers selected, and 2010 saw the release of a major rewrite in the guidelines for their use.  I think originally, almost all the reviewers were chosen from the regular geocache reviewer pool.  They had experience reviewing, and the team was more global, and that would expand over the years.  This allowed more local reviewers and would eventually allow for earthcaches to be written and reviewed in their local language.  Because of seeing the responsiveness, and more reviewers to answer questions, I think that is why you see the huge surge in 2010 and into 2011, as we cleared the backlog, and many new submissions came in. 

 

We had a surge in caching interest in the mid 2010s, and that corresponded to an increase in Earthcache submissions. It also corresponded to a 2013 release of a major rewrite of the guidelines that had been extensively overhauled by the work of many people. If I recall, that was the first relaxing of the permission guideline that had been in place since the start.  (the GSA enforced permission while they were reviewing, even though it was not written in the guidelines).  I believe this led to a huge increase in submissions in Europe, as the rewrite meant many areas no longer required written permission.

 

Are there areas that have slowed? Yes. Some areas saw large numbers of submissions, then the person submitting them stopped publishing, and few have kept it up.  Others never saw much interest.  It is far more difficult to publish an earthcache on farmland in the plains than in mountains.  A few simple locations may be all there is.   I think the numbers are still healthy.  Though slowed from the last two years.   

 

I was going to post more info on the guidelines, but that is more for a separate thread.  I think other than the 2009 and 2013 guideline changes, there have been none that really affect the publishing numbers drastically. 

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, BlueRajah said:

I think other than the 2009 and 2013 guideline changes, there have been none that really affect the publishing numbers drastically. 

When did the rule against using information on signs appear? It had to be sometime after my EarthCache was published in 2015.

[Neos2]

24 minutes ago, niraD said:

When did the rule against using information on signs appear? It had to be sometime after my EarthCache was published in 2015.

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=51&pgid=296
Perhaps about the time of the update dated 10 June, 2019?
Hopefully BlueRajah will answer that and other interesting bits of data in another post.

 

 

[+niraD]

9 hours ago, Neos2 said:

Perhaps about the time of the update dated 10 June, 2019?

I would expect the prohibition on using information on signs to be another change that affects the EarthCache publishing numbers.

 

I am not a geologist (although I did take some geology-related courses in college as part of my engineering degree). Prohibiting the use of information on signs makes it harder for non-geologists to create EarthCaches.

[Neos2]

I hear what you are saying. I think coming up with the learning activity is the most challenging part of creating an EarthCache. As a science teacher, it was always the critical issue with creating a good lesson for my students. Completing the learning activity/logging task IS the proof of visit. You want something to the point but still simple to understand how it relates to the learning activity. 

I understand why the new guideline was put in place. Just like when I taught my students, a person doesn't really "learn" anything by regurgitating words back to the other person. 

It is still possible for the creator of an EarthCache to use the information on the sign to develop the EarthCache learning activity. In fact, it is a really great starting place. You ask yourself: "What do I really want them to learn?" and often the answer is "the data on the sign" so then you figure out how to get them to learn that.

And as always, I encourage people to come in here are ask us to help them come up with ways to develop their EarthCaches. 

[+hzoi]

On 12/31/2023 at 8:09 AM, niraD said:

Prohibiting the use of information on signs makes it harder for non-geologists to create EarthCaches.

 

Two counterpoints:

 

First, parroting information off a sign is not informative. It means I can skip to the part of the earthcache with the logging questions and follow directions as to which part of the sign I'm supposed to copy back to the owner, with little danger of actually learning the earthcache lesson. It's only slightly less effective than tasks like "estimate the (height) (width) (depth) of (the thing)," which usually doesn't tell one anything about (the thing) other than how (tall) (wide) (deep) it is.

 

Good earthcache tasks are tied to the lesson. Have cachers observe something, and then ask them to tell you what the significance of that observation is based on the lesson. Don't just tell me that the (thing) was (color), apply the lesson and tell me why it was (color).

 

Second, using a sign means an earthcache cannot be maintenance-free. Most earthcache subjects are relatively permanent, so if the cache is done right, the cache owner doesn't have to keep returning to the site to make sure the earthcache still relfects what folks are going to see there.

 

Signs change. Signs fade. Signs get washed away in hurricanes or vandalized. And when that happens, earthcaches that rely entirely on signs to answer the logging tasks become impossible to complete. Unless the owner lives nearby and can come up with replacement logging tasks that rely on observations of the subject of the earthcache, the cache gets archived.

[BlueRajah]

I decided that this was high jacking the other thread too much. So I pulled this apart from the thread "Are Earthcaches Dying"

 

On 12/30/2023 at 9:18 PM, Neos2 said:

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=51&pgid=296
Perhaps about the time of the update dated 10 June, 2019?
Hopefully BlueRajah will answer that and other interesting bits of data in another post.

 

2010 had this line in the guidelines

Quote

Logging of an EarthCache must involve visitors undertaking some educational task that relates to the Earth science at the site. This could involve measuring or estimating the size of some feature or aspect of the site, collecting and recording data (such as time of a tidal bore), or sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the answer to Earth science related questions they obtained by reading an information display.

 Pulling some words from a sign is not an educational task. 

That was clarified in 2013 when the guidelines added links to the Help Center. 2013 started one of the flaws of the guidelines.  The guidelines started to exist in two places.  They were listed on the GSA website (like today) with links to the help center where the definitions were locations.  The helps center stated acceptable and non acceptable logging tasks.   "Asking geocachers to quote information from a sign" was added then.

[BlueRajah]

On 12/31/2023 at 9:28 AM, Neos2 said:

It is still possible for the creator of an EarthCache to use the information on the sign to develop the EarthCache learning activity. In fact, it is a really great starting place. You ask yourself: "What do I really want them to learn?" and often the answer is "the data on the sign" so then you figure out how to get them to learn that.

Hzio covered that above, and agree with him.  I saw a number of Earthcaches that use the signs rather than including the educational material on the cache page.  So you went there to gather the educational background to do the tasks. Howver, like Hzio mentions, there is a risk. Speaking with someone that worked at a US national park, they try and update the signs every 7-10 years.  That gives new data, graphics, and wording.  So you could lose the info you are teaching if the sign changes.  I know of one that changed from a geology of an overlook, to one that taught the history that took place there.  They had found more people were interested in the history, than the geology. Geology was a footnote.

 

 

[Neos2]

5 hours ago, BlueRajah said:

Hzio covered that above, and agree with him.  I saw a number of Earthcaches that use the signs rather than including the educational material on the cache page.  So you went there to gather the educational background to do the tasks. Howver, like Hzio mentions, there is a risk. Speaking with someone that worked at a US national park, they try and update the signs every 7-10 years.  That gives new data, graphics, and wording.  So you could lose the info you are teaching if the sign changes.  I know of one that changed from a geology of an overlook, to one that taught the history that took place there.  They had found more people were interested in the history, than the geology. Geology was a footnote.

 

 

I could clarify. Sometime the CO can use the info on a sign as a starting point for their investigation of the area. If it says "This feature was caused by x happening" for instance (volcanic intrusion, water erosion, uplift, etc). It gives the average person a starting point for what to look for geologically speaking. They can find out about the origin of the feature and use that to create the EarthCache. Something like that isn't going to change no matter what the later signs may say. 

On the other hand, there is no benefit in quoting back from a sign that says "This park opened in 1836" that isn't something the cache owner would use to create the basis of their EarthCache, either. 

I remember many early EarthCaches that had you answer two or three questions off signs. They were along the lines of "Who built this park?" and "How many visitors came in the first year it was open" etc. There is nothing to learn about the geology from questions like that and I was personally a little bit insulted that those questions were used as "Proof of visit" because the CO couldn't trust me to observe something more pertinent to the location. Now I look back an realize I was being too harsh. Many COs weren't sure the learning task was "enough" and added those fluff bits to prove you were there. That is why I continue to say the learning task is the most important part of creating the EarthCache, and for some, the most challenging. 

 

Edited January 3 by Neos2

[BlueRajah]

2 hours ago, Neos2 said:

I could clarify. ...

Yes I agree with your statement.  Using a sign for information, and using it for educational material, and even names of something that they will need to identify in a task.  But going to a mine site and asking a simple, "what minerals were mined here"  most likely would not work.  

[+niraD]

12 hours ago, BlueRajah said:

Pulling some words from a sign is not an educational task.

But providing students with a page with blanks to fill in, using information from an article or other written material, is very much an educational task. Having specific questions to answer and/or blanks to fill in helps direct the student's focus while reading the article, and writing the information in the blank spaces helps the learning process. But I digress...

 

I don't think sign-based tasks should be digit substitution or other simple copying like many multi-caches use to produce final coordinates. But...

• if the goal is to get EarthCache seekers to process the information, and
• if the information is on a sign, and
• if I can't just copy the information to my EarthCache description but would need to rewrite the information in my own words,

then prohibiting me from using the sign in my EarthCache adds a significant hurdle for me even creating my EarthCache. It also means that any question based on the information can be answered from the comfort of one's armchair, without actually visiting the location.

[BlueRajah]

22 hours ago, niraD said:

But providing students with a page with blanks to fill in, using information from an article or other written material, is very much an educational task. Having specific questions to answer and/or blanks to fill in helps direct the student's focus while reading the article, and writing the information in the blank spaces helps the learning process. But I digress...

True, but the GSA and HQ have decided that it is not,  and it has been there since the help center info was placed there.  From the help center, the section with unacceptable tasks covers it.  That is clearly the info I was given when i was instructed to review in 2010. 

Quote

An EarthCache teaches an earth science lesson. The cache page must include logging tasks that help teach the same lesson. Remember that the EarthCache is based on the world around us, not on an informational sign at the EarthCache site. Geocachers must complete the tasks before they log the EarthCache as found.

Acceptable logging tasks

• Questions that can only be answered by visiting the site.
• Questions that allow geocachers to demonstrate what they have learned.
• Open questions, like "what/why/how do you think...?"
• Questions that ask geocachers to compare geological features. For example, “Compare the shale layer to the one above it? How does it compare in thickness/color/hardness? How do you think this difference has occurred?”
• Asking geocachers to provide a photo of themselves or a personal item to prove they visited the site.  A personal item must be an option for those who do not want to photograph themselves.  This task is acceptable only as an addition to well-developed logging tasks, not as a substitution.

Tip: Tasks that require geocachers to take measurements are only accepted if they allow people to demonstrate what they have learned.

Unacceptable logging tasks

• Questions that can be answered without visiting the site, such as stating an elevation reading.
• Questions that assume prior knowledge of geology, such as "What type of rock is found here?"
• Asking geocachers to research the topic online.
• Asking geocachers to quote information from a sign.
• Asking geocachers to take measurements that do not relate to the earth science lesson and only prove that they visited the site. For example, “Measure the height of the boulder.”

Important: Provide the answers to your logging tasks and how the finder can determine them, in a Reviewer Note on the cache page. Reviewer Notes are automatically deleted when a cache is published.

 

You can use a sign, you just cant ask people to 

[+hzoi]

On 1/3/2024 at 9:26 PM, niraD said:

On 1/3/2024 at 8:34 AM, BlueRajah said:

Pulling some words from a sign is not an educational task.

But providing students with a page with blanks to fill in, using information from an article or other written material, is very much an educational task. Having specific questions to answer and/or blanks to fill in helps direct the student's focus while reading the article, and writing the information in the blank spaces helps the learning process.

 

Late response, but better late than never.

 

Filling in the blank is an educational task, but it's not a very good one. It's pretty much the lowest level educational task out there, which is why you see this more for quizzes and tests for beginning students (in the US, first through third grade or so). As students develop, teachers start requiring more, like short answer questions.

 

When I was teaching law, my academic director had us study Bloom's taxonomy and apply it when we were designing quizzes, and tests, and exercises to check student learning.

 

 

You can go to the page I linked above for a longer explanation, but here's the quick application: the higher up the pyramid students go, the better, if your goal is to teach them something.

 

Fill in the blank/read the sign questions fall under "remember." It's something to do at the coordinates, but it's really not driving the point home. It basically makes it a geology-flavored virtual, which, let's be honest, describes most of the early earthcaches. But over time, the GSA has changed the guidelines to try to make this the educational program it's supposed to be.

 

Here's what I suggested above:

 

On 1/2/2024 at 4:22 PM, hzoi said:

Good earthcache tasks are tied to the lesson. Have cachers observe something, and then ask them to tell you what the significance of that observation is based on the lesson. Don't just tell me that the (thing) was (color), apply the lesson and tell me why it was (color).

 

With these, we're not just regurgitating facts. We're moving up to understanding the lesson (describe the thing) and then applying (or even analyzing) the lesson (why is that?).

 

Since earthcaches aren't college courses, there's only so far earthcache owners should go in order to teach a point, otherwise, cachers are going to grumble about "homework caches" and skip it. So I try to keep things within the green at most. But I've seen caches that go all the way up to create, and pull it off. I can't remember the cache off the top of my head, I'll see if I can find it, but I remember doing one where I had to submit a sketch of something. I'm glad I stuck it out, because it was a really good way of driving home the points in the lesson.

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, hzoi said:

On 1/2/2024 at 5:22 PM, hzoi said:

Good earthcache tasks are tied to the lesson. Have cachers observe something, and then ask them to tell you what the significance of that observation is based on the lesson. Don't just tell me that the (thing) was (color), apply the lesson and tell me why it was (color).

What if the information needed to determine "why it was (color)" is found on a sign?

 

Some of the information needed to answer the questions in my EarthCache is in the description. Some of it is on signs located on site. For new EarthCaches, are "remember" questions based on signs prohibited, even when there are also "understand" (and maybe even "apply") questions? What if those "understand" (and maybe even "apply") questions are also based on information found on signs, at least in part?

 

7 hours ago, hzoi said:

Since earthcaches aren't college courses, there's only so far earthcache owners should go in order to teach a point, otherwise, cachers are going to grumble about "homework caches" and skip it.

And potential EarthCache owners are likely to skip it if they're expected to create a college-level earth science lesson.

 

But maybe that's the goal.

[+Goldenwattle]

9 hours ago, hzoi said:

one where I had to submit a sketch of something

I had one of those too. A pain! Especially as the layers I had to draw were unclear. It was a long cutting, so I walked along and took lots of photographs to cover the length and then stitched them together. After which I traced what I guessed (had to and even them I wasn't sure) were the layers. NOT one of my favourite Earthcaches.

My favourite Earthcaches are those that take me to something unique (not just another granite monument) and with clear easy questions. Then I can enjoy the fascinating feature, get up close, take photographs from different angles and study the interesting feature. Some Earthcaches appear designed to turn you off what you have been brought to see.

[+hzoi]

On 2/23/2024 at 5:34 PM, niraD said:

On 2/23/2024 at 9:40 AM, hzoi said:

On 1/2/2024 at 4:22 PM, hzoi said:

Good earthcache tasks are tied to the lesson. Have cachers observe something, and then ask them to tell you what the significance of that observation is based on the lesson. Don't just tell me that the (thing) was (color), apply the lesson and tell me why it was (color).

Expand  

Expand  

What if the information needed to determine "why it was (color)" is found on a sign?

 

 

Simple: incorporate what's on the sign into the cache description.

 

That way, when the sign gets destroyed,.or vandalized, or upgraded, the information is preserved in the cache description, and no owner maintenance is needed.

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, hzoi said:

Simple: incorporate what's on the sign into the cache description.

 

 

On 1/3/2024 at 10:26 PM, niraD said:

I don't think sign-based tasks should be digit substitution or other simple copying like many multi-caches use to produce final coordinates. But...

• if the goal is to get EarthCache seekers to process the information, and
• if the information is on a sign, and
• if I can't just copy the information to my EarthCache description but would need to rewrite the information in my own words,

then prohibiting me from using the sign in my EarthCache adds a significant hurdle for me even creating my EarthCache. It also means that any question based on the information can be answered from the comfort of one's armchair, without actually visiting the location.

 

[+hzoi]

On 3/11/2024 at 9:00 PM, niraD said:

prohibiting me from using the sign in my EarthCache adds a significant hurdle for me even creating my EarthCache.

 

Significant? Come on. How is this significant? It's potentially easier than doing an earthcache where there isn't a sign. It's like copying off of someone's homework and changing it up so it's not plagiarizing.

 

Also, 

On 3/11/2024 at 9:00 PM, niraD said:

It also means that any question based on the information can be answered from the comfort of one's armchair, without actually visiting the location.

 

I'm not quite sure I follow your argument. Isn't this more of a justification not to use signs?

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

 

 

 

Also, 

 

I'm not quite sure I follow your argument. Isn't this more of a justification not to use signs?

It's an argument FOR using a sign, as part of the answering process. As long as it can't be seen from Google maps and a search does not reveal it as available, it is a strong indication the person has visited there. That along with a photograph. Far better than some ambiguous questions.