Locationless Cache's Must Die

June 10, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:
As you've already mentioned, with locationless caches, the GPS becomes involved AFTER the find. With benchmarks, the coordinates come first (even if they are imprecise coordinates that are only displayed to the tenth of the minute). Using descriptions of the benchmark locations rather than the coordinates to find them is no different than using cache hints to find caches rather than a GPS (something that a number of people do).

Hmmmm, so you seem to be saying that if I go to a benchmark/cache page and then find the cache using just the hint/description NOT A GPS OR THE COORDINATES, that is ok. But if I go to a locationless cache page, do some research find a place that fits the description then go there, again without the help of a GPS (only using it to log the find), that's not ok?

Again, I realize that locationless caches are for the most part 'backwards', but some of the arguments against them just don't make any sense to me given the 'rules' for finding regular caches. It seems to me that things would be a lot better here if people who don't like the locationless caches would just IGNORE them and let the ones that do enjoy them play. But I suppose it cuts into their ego that some people might be able to 'pad' thier numbers (even though the number don't count right?) by hitting locationless caches. I mean some people might even get more FINDS than them! EGADS! (Let me just say, none of the preceeding is directed at anyone in particular, just general statements of my feelings.)

As has been suggested before the best solution seems to be to move the locationless caches to seperate section (with more relaxed requirements) like the benchmarks, and remove the find counts. Or make a seperate find count just for the locationless.

What I would really like to propose is a seperate section, ala benchmarking, with totally seperate find counts, search engines, etc. And I'll go one further, an admin(s) who is in charge of approving the locationless caches who actually LIKES/HUNTS locationless caches. It is my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that none of the current admins like them in the least. And because of that (and the new rules) it's almost impossible to get a locationless approved, even though some of the rejected ideas that I've seen seem perfectly acceptable to me (JMHO). I think if locationless is moved to another section we should be allowed to relax the rules a little bit on what constitutes a good locationless cache. Granted there are some caches out there that are just too trivial to be worth it (yellow jeep, Cha-Ching, and Hippie VW Microbus come to mind). But there are certainly some merit in some of the one's recently that have been denied.

Sorry for the rant, I'll step off the soap box now.

----

Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together.

[This message was edited by Gloom on June 10, 2002 at 11:53 PM.]

June 11, 2002

The separate database idea coupled with the finder-pin-map idea would suit me just fine. I too have avoided hunting location less so as not to appear to be padding my anemic numbers.

3.1k · June 11, 2002

quote:
Lazyboy, I really wish you would stop calling people names in the forums. The only one whining and calling people names is you. Everyone else is trying to have a discussion.

I wanted to keep them in the general site, but now that I am being called names by a cacher I would just assume see them go to a separate area so the controversy would just go away.

So get it right, am I calling "people" names on here or am I calling you names on here?

Sorry you took it so personal. I am calling the vocal minority whiners and I'll stick to it. Again, over 25000 traditional caches and only 116 locationless and yet all this whining about it.

The forums is a place to hash it out. Jeremy certainly doesn't want to receive an e-mail everytime someone is pro or con on a subject.

Here's the deal though. Guess why so many are upset about locationless caches. It's because of the numbers. They don't think they should really count, not fair. They'll get way ahead of me too easily... Yet there are many many virtuals that are much easier. Some of them can be solved on the computer and many others with just a phone call. At least with locationless you actually have to take a photo of yourself with your gps in front of the item.

I don't care where they put the locationless since I'm not a numbers freak. If I were I would scan the site for easy virtuals and rack up a bunch.

Oh and the controversy will never go away regardless, whiners always have a way of whining about something.

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

1.4k · June 11, 2002

Benchmarks are most like virtual caches. In both cases, the object being hunted is in a single, fixed location, and the location is given before the hunt. Locationless caches, on the other hand, do not have a single, fixed location. The hunter finds a location, and posts the location after the find.

How the hunter finds the object (GPS or not) is irrelevant. I find most TRADITIONAL caches without a GPSr. The defining factor is whether the location is fixed before the hunt, or after.

I'm hoping Jeremy will simply set up another game on this site for locationless caches, as well as other games for such databases such as highpointing, National Register of Historic Places, mountain summits, and so forth. I've been under the impression that "Groundspeak" was not just geocaching, but developing other activities as well.

June 11, 2002

"whiners always have a way of whining about something."

Ummmm, Lazyboy? Have ya looked in the mirror lately? You are really beginning to resemble this remark.

I think you have made it perfectly clear that you are unhappy. It seems you have issues with a number of things that have been topics over the past few weeks, which really makes me wonder why you stick around. The only thing I see is a few certain people doing everything possible to rile up others in the forums about stuff thatreally is not that important in the grand scheme of things.

I think about the best thing you have said (although it could have been said a little less like a petulant 5 year old) is that you are gonna help find some place else to start a site for locationless caches. That is an excellent idea! Now instead of continuing to insult those that disagree with you, go out and start a new site for all locationless cahes and make it a sucess and then come back and show us all how wrong we were. But please, PLEASE stop acting like the little kid who can't have his way so he is gonna go home and take his toys with him. We are adults here.

Jeremy has the right to do what he wants. It is his site. Hell, I don't always agree with him either, but I think he does his best to make things work for the most people.

All I can say is that in my opinion, there is a certain "tone" to your posts and to Senecas that really leave a bad impression.

Either go out and prove everyone wrong, or live with it, but let it go!

Rant complete. Now go play nicely

Dep

[This message was edited by Dep&Uno&Co on June 11, 2002 at 09:14 AM.]

June 11, 2002

"whiners always have a way of whining about something."

Ummmm, Lazyboy? Have ya looked in the mirror lately? You are really beginning to resemble this remark.

I think you have made it perfectly clear that you are unhappy. It seems you have issues with a number of things that have been topics over the past few weeks, which really makes me wonder why you stick around. The only thing I see is a few certain people doing everything possible to rile up others in the forums about stuff thatreally is not that important in the grand scheme of things.

I think about the best thing you have said (although it could have been said a little less like a petulant 5 year old) is that you are gonna help find some place else to start a site for locationless caches. That is an excellent idea! Now instead of continuing to insult those that disagree with you, go out and start a new site for all locationless cahes and make it a sucess and then come back and show us all how wrong we were. But please, PLEASE stop acting like the little kid who can't have his way so he is gonna go home and take his toys with him. We are adults here.

Jeremy has the right to do what he wants. It is his site. Hell, I don't always agree with him either, but I think he does his best to make things work for the most people.

All I can say is that in my opinion, there is a certain "tone" to your posts and to Senecas that really leave a bad impression.

Either go out and prove everyone wrong, or live with it, but let it go!

Rant complete. Now go play nicely

Dep

[This message was edited by Dep&Uno&Co on June 11, 2002 at 09:14 AM.]

June 11, 2002

Finding a locationless cache is like hiding (setting up) a virtual cache - first you locate a location and then you use your GPS your record the co-ordinates and then you post the co-ordinates - I think the next step in locationless caches should be for players to be able to locate (with their GPS) various locations that have been found by the locationless cache finders - those could then be logged as virtual finds.

For example, if I am interested in finding Historic Missions, I would look up all of the ones that have been found as locationless caches -and then use my GPS to go and look for them. This part of the game would be like Benchmarking -looking for specific locations of a particular category.

As I have said on a previous thread - this would require a whole new type of set-up for locationless caches -

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

20.7k · June 11, 2002

Seneca makes a good point. It is also a good argument for allowing locationless 'places' to be found more than once.

I wonder how many cachers have found a locationless cache and placed a 'real' or virtual cache at the location. It seems to me that several of the locationless caches would lead to a pretty cool location for a cache.

3k · June 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

I wonder how many cachers have found a locationless cache and placed a 'real' or virtual cache at the location. It seems to me that several of the locationless caches would lead to a pretty cool location for a cache.

I agree ... and I did just that!

One of the few locationless caches I've done was Perfect Tommy's Heavy Metal; the goal was to find decommissioned warships. As with many locationless caches, Tommy used the "one hit per vessel" rule.

Tommy had already claimed the closest and largest famous ship in the region, the USS INTREPID, so I chose the nearby USS LING, the centerpiece of the New Jersey Naval Museum, and after claiming the locationless, posted it as a virtual cache for all to enjoy.

2.6k · June 11, 2002

Originally posted by seneca:
- I think the next step in locationless caches should be for players to be able to locate (with their GPS) various locations that have been found by the locationless cache finders - those could then be logged as virtual finds.

For example, if I am interested in finding Historic Missions, I would look up all of the ones that have been found as locationless caches -and then use my GPS to go and look for them. This part of the game would be like Benchmarking -looking for specific locations of a particular category.

I think it should be required that all locationless should allow multiple visits. Use the coordinates provided by the first finders so that others can share the same spot. Of course, you would need a new photo.

Geocaching involves first finding a spot and taking it's coordinates and then encouraging others to go to the same spot.

Locationless, on the other hand, first involve finding the spot and then discouraging others from visiting.

Can you see the disconnection?

george

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

20.7k · June 11, 2002

George, I see what your saying and I agree to some extent. I'm not sure that I would want all locationless to allow multiple visits. That's just my opinion.

I think the solution is for cachers to do what BP did and create virts (or regular caches) when these locations turn out to be worthy.

Have you guys noticed that emotions get so high regarding these 'locationless' threads that we end up arguing with people that we agree with?

2.6k · June 11, 2002

Locationless caches are like broccoli if you don't like it, don't eat it.

What I cant see is what is the big problem with them, oh and before people start running and looking yes I have done about 20 maybe. I've also done over 250 actual caches.

I think it should be up to an individual if they want to do them fine, if they don't well thats fine too. Why all the bickering.

One thought maybe the people that are complaining about them don't have any or many that they can find in their area. Just a thought..

All who look are not lost

[This message was edited by vagabond on June 11, 2002 at 04:24 PM.]

2.6k · June 11, 2002

Locationless caches are like broccoli if you don't like it, don't eat it.

What I cant see is what is the big problem with them, oh and before people start running and looking yes I have done about 20 maybe. I've also done over 250 actual caches.

I think it should be up to an individual if they want to do them fine, if they don't well thats fine too. Why all the bickering.

One thought maybe the people that are complaining about them don't have any or many that they can find in their area. Just a thought..

All who look are not lost

[This message was edited by vagabond on June 11, 2002 at 04:24 PM.]

June 11, 2002

The bottom line is,

To each their own.

I won't step in your poop if you won't step in mine.

Or something like that.

::mumble mumble::

June 11, 2002

The bottom line is,

To each their own.

I won't step in your poop if you won't step in mine.

Or something like that.

::mumble mumble::

7.2k · June 11, 2002

Some good discussions above (finally). My understanding of the problem with locationless caches is that you have four groups of opinions.

1. One group wants them banned.

2. One group wants guidelines so that locationless caches will not degrade to the point where common items are submitted for cache approval and then expected to be approved.

3. One group wants any locationless cache that is submitted approved pretty much no matter what it is.

4. One group does not log them, and just does not care about them at all.

I am in group 2. I have logged a few locationless caches, but I agree with the new guidelines that the target should be unique and interesting. It should not something commomplace, something that will not be in the same place later, or something that would be found in the phone book.

I think group 1 is very small.

I think group 4 is very large.

Again I will cite statistics. Only around 3 percent of cachers have logged locationless caches. They are easy to find since there is a link to them on every search result page. The argument comes in the void between group 2 and 3.

I think George's comment about the disconnection is pretty profound. I disagree with part of the second statement though. Jeremy has said that there should only be one found per locationless target item for one thing. Secondly, if the locationless found target item is so interesting, people would seek out the target whether or not they get a "Found It" or not. I mean, is that not correct? You do not discourage anyone from going to visit, you know, unless the target item is so lame that it is not worth a visit without an easy "Found It". After all, another cacher has already found it and marked the coordinates for you, so all the work is done. If it is that interesting, go see it.

To me, finding a locationless cache is like setting up an entry for www.waypoint.org - first you locate a location and then you use your GPS your record the co-ordinates and then you post the co-ordinates on their submit a waypoint page. Then it is arranged neatly and by category so others can go find the targeted item... they just do not get a "Found It".

Hmmm. Ahh, yes.

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy:
So get it right, am I calling "people" names on here or am I calling you names on here?

Sorry you took it so personal. I am calling the vocal minority whiners and I'll stick to it. Again, over 25000 traditional caches and only 116 locationless and yet all this whining about it.

I did not take it "so personal", I just think it is improper. It is nice to see that everyone else who is posting remarks here are staying rational and are not trying to insult others as the only defense of their point.

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

June 11, 2002

mtn-man,

You forgot my group.

5. Those who feel that locationless are not truly “geocaches” and would be best served in a separate site like benchmarks.

Of course they would still require guidelines.

whidbey

http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

2.6k · June 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

I think George's comment about the disconnection is pretty profound. I disagree with part of the second statement though. Jeremy has said that there should only be one found per locationless target item for one thing.

I can't find where he said this... can you help me out.

Secondly, if the locationless found target item is so interesting, people would seek out the target whether or not they get a "Found It" or not. I mean, is that not correct? You do not discourage anyone from going to visit, you know, unless the target item is so lame that it is not worth a visit without an easy "Found It". After all, another cacher has already found it and marked the coordinates for you, so all the work is done. If it is that interesting, go see it.

To me, finding a locationless cache is like setting up an entry for http://www.waypoint.org - first you locate a location and then you use your GPS your record the co-ordinates and then you post the co-ordinates on their submit a waypoint page. Then it is arranged neatly and by category so others can go find the targeted item... they just do not get a "Found It".

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

7.2k · June 11, 2002

I will always admit it if I am wrong...

You are right George, it is up to the creator of the cache.

I apologize for my incorrect statement.

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

4.5k · June 11, 2002

Im new to this but i have to say that i dont think i will find locationless caches appealing. As far as those that enjoy posting and/or finding them, have fun! I dont understand why anyone else would get upset about that, and i sure dont see where it hurts a dadblasted thing,,

Now that ive given my humble opinion, i do think i will log that "Yellow Jeep" locationless cache, just have to walk outside to the garage for this one,,,hehe.

Yellow Jeep

June 15, 2002

I am very new to all of this but here is why I became interested in geocaching. I saw it as a way to go to places and see things I normally would not. Maybe to think to solve some kind of a problem. In looking at the listings there are sites that interest me and some that don’t. Some I think I could accomplish and some not. I don’t want and can’t climb mountains so those are out. But I do like a little bit of a challenge and that does not always have to be physical. I enjoy looking at the locationless listings. Yes some are just stupid (IMHO) but there are some that are interesting and some new things you can learn. And some you have to think about to make it work and maybe be clever. I just thought this all seemed to be out there to meet the needs of everybody. From easy to hard. Can someone please explain to me why the obsession with numbers? I thought this was about an individual’s enjoyment. I intend to pick and choose what I will go after based on a bunch of different criteria that works for me. To me it seems like scanning my radio in the car and having to come across stations playing music I don’t like, I just keep going. Give lots of options, lots of choices, lots of different things. A person can then decide what they want to do and enjoy it how they like. I intend to try a little bit of everything and expect that I will settle on an area or two or however many I like. The choices should be there and available. For the life of me I can’t see what the problem is having the option. So far nobody has told me what kinds of things I have to go after. Just relax look for what you want and ignore the rest.

June 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Duc996:
Give me a break. Finding cities that begin with letter "X", find a casino, find an airport.....?? Okay it was fun at first but its way out of hand now.

I don't get it. I just don't get it. OK, I can see that locationless caches aren't for you. That's cool. You don't have to do them if you don't want to. But why, precisely, is it, that people who don't like an aspect of a hobby always find it necessary to spoilt that aspect for those who do?

If you don't like locationless caches, then don't do them. But there are a lot of people who do -- my locationless caches get a lot more traffic than any of my real caches, for instance. So let them have their fun too.

It ain't no skin off your nose.

June 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:

Originally posted by seneca:
- I think the next step in locationless caches should be for players to be able to locate (with their GPS) various locations that have been found by the locationless cache finders - those could then be logged as virtual finds.

For example, if I am interested in finding Historic Missions, I would look up all of the ones that have been found as locationless caches -and then use my GPS to go and look for them. This part of the game would be like Benchmarking -looking for specific locations of a particular category.

I think it should be required that all locationless should allow multiple visits. Use the coordinates provided by the first finders so that others can share the same spot. Of course, you would need a new photo.

Geocaching involves first finding a spot and taking it's coordinates and then encouraging others to go to the same spot.

Locationless, on the other hand, first involve finding the spot and then discouraging others from visiting.

Can you see the disconnection?

george

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

I like the idea of locationless becoming virtual. The thing I like most about geocaching is that it gets me to go explore places I wouldn't otherwise have thought to go to, and I like the idea of all the *found* locationless caches becoming virtual, so that those people who want that aspect of geocaching can take advantage of it.

I also like the idea that 'locationless' becomes something different in the same way that benchmarks did.

About the only thing I don't like is the fascist attitude of some people who, because they don't want to participate in some part of the hobby, have decided that no one else should be able to.

Life's too short to have someone else impose their idea of what's "right" imposed on yoru hobbies.

June 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
I do not want them to go away, I just wish people would be creative and think about them more like the first few that were done -- and they were well done. As I have said, I have logged a few of the first ones.

As as far as changing the rules as you go you have to remember this...

At the start you had to post the coordinates for a location, either a physical cache site or a virtual cache because no cache box was allowed for legal reasons. The rules changed at one point to allow a cache to be approved that had no coordinates. It appears that Geocaching has been attempting to adapt to what cachers want. Locationless caches are linked at the top EVERY result page every time you do a search, yet less than 1 percent of cachers log them. It is not as if they are hard to find, but if they were so popular there would be 2000 logs on every cache since there are over 12,000 Geocachers (or more).

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

On the other hand, I've got three locationless caches and five real caches, but over 75% of the cache hits on my caches are for the locationless ones.

*AND* I've done less work to find some "real" caches than people have done to find my locationless caches.

7.2k · June 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Fouts:
About the only thing I don't like is the fascist attitude of some people who, because they don't want to participate in some part of the hobby, have decided that no one else should be able to.

Life's too short to have someone else impose their idea of what's "right" imposed on yoru hobbies.

I think the "fascist... people" are concerned about the "dumbing down of geocaching". You seem to fall into category 3. The locationless caches will degrade into "The Manhole Cover Cache" before long. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The line has been drawn and now everyone thinks their cache is not over that line. Just submit your ideas to the forums with a poll and see what happens before placing the locationless cache as is requested in the Guidelines/Requirements. What is so complicated about that? Are potential cache creators afraid of their ideas being shot down as this cache was?

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

7.2k · June 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Fouts:
On the other hand, I've got three locationless caches and five real caches, but over 75% of the cache hits on my caches are for the locationless ones.

Locationless -- Bronze Baseballer -- 2 finds

Locationless -- Former Fire Fighter -- 28 finds

Locationless -- Mission Madness -- 6 finds

Physical -- The Wallis Bee Tree -- 11 finds

Physical -- Urban University -- 8 finds

Physical -- Tabled Topics -- 19 finds

Physical -- Page Mill Pull Out -- 4 finds

Physical -- Silicon Valley Slept Here -- 16 finds

Locationless = 36 total

Physical = 58 total

Yields ------> 38.29 percent of your founds are for your locationless caches as of your post. I am sorry, but I hate it when the facts are misrepresented to attempt to reinforce a point.

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

June 18, 2002

It's a debate that can't be won.

What say we close this thread, huh?

-----------

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." - Mark Twain

June 19, 2002

Da Rebel , I agree.

7.2k · June 19, 2002

First some of us were called whiners, then we have been called fascist...

now we are retarded? Hehehehehe.

I love the Internet!

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

7.2k · June 19, 2002

First some of us were called whiners, then we have been called fascist...

now we are retarded? Hehehehehe.

I love the Internet!

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

June 19, 2002

Now that was funny!

-----------

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." - Mark Twain

1.4k · June 19, 2002

Locationless cache threads must die!!!

Enough already.

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

3.1k · June 19, 2002

mtn man you persist in saying people (especially me) have called you names. No one has called you anything here.

Paranoia can be treated

oh oh, now he's gonna think I called him paranoid!!!

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

3.1k · June 19, 2002

mtn man you persist in saying people (especially me) have called you names. No one has called you anything here.

Paranoia can be treated

oh oh, now he's gonna think I called him paranoid!!!

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

7.2k · June 19, 2002

Sorry, but my post was a joke.

Is is possible that you might be the paranoid one?

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

7.2k · June 19, 2002

Sorry, but my post was a joke.

Is is possible that you might be the paranoid one?

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

June 19, 2002

Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean everyone is not out to get you!

-----------

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." - Mark Twain

3.1k · June 19, 2002

Yep, I'm paranoid.

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

June 19, 2002

I use to be paranoid, but I progressed way beyond a simple pair. Now I think I'm triplenoid!

--majicman

(Always trade UP in both quantity and quality and Geocaches will be both self-sustaining and self-improving!)

Locationless Cache's Must Die

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation