What constitutes a "legitimate" cache?

1k · March 19, 2002

This poll and this poll didn't quite address what I believe is at the core of the controversy over some of the "locationless" caches that have been established recently. I even started to originate another poll, but quickly realized that I wouldn't be able to do any better than (probably not as well as) the first two. So I'm just going to post my thoughts here, and I ask that you mull them over and then respond with your own.

I realize that not everyone will agree with my opinion regarding the legitimacy of certain caches; I only ask that you remember it's just my opinion and it carries no malicious intent. If you disagree with it, please tell me why, offer your own, and keep it civil.

Here are my thoughts...

In my opinion the essence of geocaching, as promoted and practiced on this website is this:

1. The cache "originator" identifies the cache location (or at least a starting point if it is a multi or offset) by posting the coordinates on the website.

2. The cache "seeker" navigates to the posted coordinates and attempts to "find" the cache, usually using a GPSr.

Even if a cache meets the single basic criterion (i.e. posted coordinates), it may still be disqualified from this site for other reasons, such as location in forbidden areas, commercial promotion, etc.

Innovators have expanded upon the original basic concept; in addition to physical caches, we now have virtual, photography, and NGS Survey caches, among others. But each of these have still met the basic criterion of using coordinates to which the seeker could navigate.

Some recent innovators have, whether intentionally or not, omitted the basic criterion or "reverse engineered" it. Rather than posting coordinates to which a seeker can navigate, they establish a new criterion (i.e. a McD's while on vacation, a hometown sign, etc.) and instruct seekers to select a location of their choice matching that criterion and later report the coordinates. In these cases, the coordinates have nothing to do with the seeker locating the cache.

In my opinion, caches of this type deviate from the established precedent to an extent that they are not legitimate caches and, therefore, should not be posted on the geocaching.com website. But I hasten to add and acknowledge that, as the "owner" of this site, Jeremy has the ultimate say in what is acceptable here.

Now, please let me know what you think.

(Note: edited to clean up a couple typos)

Worldtraveler

[This message was edited by worldtraveler on March 19, 2002 at 01:45 PM.]

1.4k · March 19, 2002

Does it really matter how we "define" a geocache? As long as there are no legal or ethical problems with a cache location, I see no problems with allowing "inovators" to create entirely new cache types. Either these new types will end up being complete duds and go away, or they will inspire other "inovators" to create even better variations. Either way, the sport is going to evolve. New ideas are going to enter the game, and it will change over time.

If you don't like it, don't hunt it.

Hopefully Jeremy will soon program in an option to "Ignore a Cache" or even "Ignore a Cache Type." It would be helpful to begin also including some new cache type icons.

My 2 cents

1k · March 19, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:
Does it really matter how we "define" a geocache?...

Web-ling,

I think Brokenwing answered your question more eloquently than I could in his reply to one of the polls mentioned above.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:

...As I mentioned before, I think that at some point, a line has to be drawn in the sand about what constitutes a cache and what doesn't. If we don't (or more appropriately Jeremy doesn't) do this, eventually the geocaching.com website will become a listing of points of interest and fun activities. Kind of like the "Where's the beef" commercials, I'll be asking: "Where's the cache?"

Ponder on these ideas:

+ When was your town founded? (No need to leave the house! Just post when your town was founded!)

+ Post the location of your kids Little League Game. (Or any other sport.)

+ Any Corporate Office's in your town? Post them here!

+ Log the best places to buy caching gear!

+ What’s your favorite coffee shop?

+ Where are the cheap gas prices in your area?

These are some I came up with in just a few minutes. If this kind of thing was allowed, thousands of such listings could be posted in no time, making other perhaps more deserving listings harder and harder to find. I have no real problem with any of this kind of thing, but geocaching.com is not the place for them...

Worldtraveler

20.7k · March 19, 2002

Web-ling has it right. If you don't like it, don't look for it. Don't screw with the bliss of others.

1.1k · March 19, 2002

I think it's interesting to see some of the lesser-known or creative places that people come up with in finding things to log on some of these 'multiple answer' virtual caches. (Yes, I've seen some that strike me as really lame, too...I simply ignore those, in lieu of the ones that interest me.) I also enjoy the sense of "community" that we seem to be establishing here...so seeing where people are from or grew up, etc., also interests me.

Although these "reverse engineered" caches don't require a GPSr to find them in the first place, by posting the coordinaties of the finds, others can use those coordinates to go check out the place after the fact, if it looks or sounds interesting to them. (Like "Nowhere, Oklahoma" for example.)

One of the main things I enjoy about geocaching is the motivation and inspiration to get out and enjoy nature and see places I might not have otherwise had the occasion to. Since these fulfill that, I think they should continue to be allowed on the site. But I like the idea of having a separate category for them, so that people who aren't interested in them can not have to be bothered with them, and those who ARE interested, can easily seek them out.

I'd like to see a separate counting system for those 'non-caches' as well, to keep things more fair for those who enjoy the competitive aspect of the hunt.

March 19, 2002

I kinda like the Prime Number and Palindrome caches. I think they are interesting because you gotta think about the coordinates and try to find a set that you can get to. Then you gotta get up off your butt and go there to take a picture. Now if I could just find ( by happy coincidence ) a prime number palindrome that happens to be at historically significant marker where I can place a physical cache I'd have the ultimate cache!

... Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by, ...

unclerojelio

1k · March 19, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:
Web-ling has it right. If you don't like it, don't look for it. Don't screw with the bliss of others.

I'm not trying to disrupt anyone's bliss. The facts are that this website runs on finite resources and for that reason, if no other, not everything can be included. Jeremy has already asked our opinion on a few caches that he deemed to be of questionable appropriateness for this site.

So since it's obvious that "(almost)anything goes" is not acceptable/appropriate/possible for this site, what, in your opinion, should be included?

I've given the single criterion that I can think of that appears to have been most (though not absolutely) consistently applied in determining what is allowed. Is there a better way to make that determination? What should it be?

Thanks.

Worldtraveler

March 19, 2002

I think the issue here isn't just "if you don't like it, don't look for it".

Without some sort of meaningful guidelines to define what is and isn't a Geocache, the game will soon be polluted with countless virtual sneaker-caches like the ones WorldTraveller quoted.

It's important to have some basic, fundamental criteria to determine what qualifies as a Geocache so we don't wind up with a massive database of activities completely unrelated to Geocaching.

My personal feeling is that if it doesn't involve caching and doesn't involve seeking something at a given coordinate, then it's just not a geocache... and it shouldn't be listed as one.

-- Doppler

March 19, 2002

I think that if a cache doen't use a GPS to find it, then it's no realys a cache Its plainly written in the premade cache letters of introductions that a cache is a container, hidden, found with a gps. not just some place that meets an arbitrary set of goals that offtens as not requirer no real huntint

"Congratulations, you've found it! Intentionally or not!

What is this hidden container sitting here for? What the heck is this thing doing here with all these things in it?

It is part of a worldwide game dedicated to GPS (Global Positioning System) users, called GPS Stash Hunting, or Geocaching. The game basically involves a GPS user hiding "treasure" (this container and its contents), and publishing the exact coordinates so other GPS users can come on a "treasure hunt" to find it. The only rules are: if you take something from the stash, you must leave something for the stash, and you must write about your visit in the logbook. Hopefully, the person that stashed this container found a good spot that is on public property and is not easily found by uninterested parties. Sometimes, a good spot turns out to be a bad spot, though."

Sorry if I piss people off with what I type, I have a bad habbit of being coarse in my posts.

Dark Noise

I am the king of pawns.

I am the sound that comes when the light is gone.

March 19, 2002

A cache is a cache whether it is physical, virtual, post-a-photo-of..., or even a "reversed engineered" form of the game. Let this game evolve over time and the types of caches that are popular will prevail. Just because a cache doesn't meet the "basic definition" of what a cache "should" be, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered in the game.

Besides there are more important aspects of this game to worry about, such as convincing the NPS that we're not all evil meadow mashers.

Lost? I'm not lost. At least I don't think I'm lost, well............OK, maybe just a little.

March 19, 2002

I have to vote with the "coordinates needed" faction. There are other sports out there that have some of the same properties as Geocaching but they aren't and we don't include them in with Geocaches. The two I'm thinking of are Letterboxing and Orienteering.

IMO, this sport needs a defined set of rules, something to say just what a Geocache is. An increase in bandwidth and clutter are two items that will occur without this taking place.

IMO, rule #1 should be that the average person looking for the cache will need the GPSR and supplied coordinates. If there are no coordinates provided then it's not a cache. That's not to say that there can't be a formula for figuring out what the coordinates are and having different coordinates for different people. Palindromes and the one based on your name being two. The difference between those two and the McDonald's and stadium ones are that the first two still need a GPS to get to the coords. I can find my local stadiums easily without a GPSR and finding a Mickey Ds only takes swinging a cat.

So, again, a find must be based on some set of coordinates.

1k · March 19, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Misguided One:
A cache is a cache whether it is physical, virtual, post-a-photo-of..., or even a "reversed engineered" form of the game.

I thank you for expressing your opinion on this topic, even though it differs from my own.

quote:
Let this game evolve over time and the types of caches that are popular will prevail. Just because a cache doesn't meet the "basic definition" of what a cache "should" be, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered in the game.

This position seems to assume that storage space and bandwidth are not now nor ever will be problems needing resolution. I don't think that is a valid assumption.

It also assumes there will be a "natural" attrition of unpopular types of caches; but caches, even unpopular ones, don't "die" and go away on their own. Even the ones that are universally acknowledged as "bad" (i.e. "Sneakers"), are archived and continue to occupy storage space. That fact alone, in my opinion, justifies establishing criteria by which "illegitimate" caches (however they may be defined) could be prevented in order to preserve, prolong, and protect the integrity of the database further into the future.

quote:
Besides there are more important aspects of this game to worry about, such as convincing the NPS that we're not all evil meadow mashers.

There certainly are other topics worthy of our attention, but that doesn't mean this one should not be discussed. It is very basic to what this activity is all about.

Worldtraveler

[This message was edited by worldtraveler on March 19, 2002 at 07:04 PM.]

1.4k · March 19, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team Dragon:
I have to vote with the "coordinates needed" faction. There are other sports out there that have some of the same properties as Geocaching but they aren't and we don't include them in with Geocaches. The two I'm thinking of are Letterboxing and Orienteering.

We have had a seperate icon for letterbox caches for a long time. Anytime you include offsets or any kind of a map, you're essentially incorporating orienteering. There are now orienteering meets offering GPS-only courses along with traditional courses. The line between geocaching and these other sports is pretty fuzzy.

Although I have enjoyed the "reverse-engineered" caches I have done, I can see that they really do stretch the concept of geocaching. I still would hate to see them banned. At this point in time, they aren't really hogging up a huge percentage of the storage space or bandwidth. I could see at some time in the future a need to split them off to another website if they became too big. They do need a different icon.

[This message was edited by Web-ling on March 19, 2002 at 09:17 PM.]

1k · March 19, 2002

quote:
...The line between geocaching and these other sports is pretty fuzzy.

Yes, however your source still specifically mentions coordinates as the criterion that distinguishes a letterbox site from a combination cache/letterbox site.

quote:
A letterbox is another form of treasure hunting using clues instead of coordinates. In some cases, however, a letterbox has coordinates, and the owner has made it a letterbox and a geocache.

Worldtraveler

1.4k · March 19, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by worldtraveler:
...The line between geocaching and these other sports is pretty fuzzy.

Yes, _however_ your source still specifically mentions coordinates as the criterion that distinguishes a letterbox site from a combination cache/letterbox site.

A letterbox is another form of treasure hunting using clues _instead of coordinates_. In some cases, however, a letterbox _has coordinates_, and the owner has made it a letterbox _and a geocache_.

Worldtraveler

What about letterbox caches that are essentially a multi-cache, but the only coords given are the starting point? The rest of the hunt involves using non-coordinate clues?

My point is that it is VERY HARD to define a geocache. By creating a hard-and-fast definition, and limiting all caches to that definition, we're stifling the creativity that has attracted many of us to the sport.

For a sport that isn't even 2 years old, it seems kind of odd that so many people want to restrict the sort of innovations that could make the game even more exciting and popular.

March 19, 2002

If I had to define what a geocache would be, I would use the following criteria:

If the coordinates posted on the cache page is an actual location that you go seek then it would be a cache, but if those coordinates are fake arbitrary numbers that do not indicate a location to seek then it would not be a cache.

That being said, I don't really mind some of those that do not match my definiton above such as Historical Covered Bridges. I think this cache takes you to interesting places. However, if we were talking about a "Contemporary Neon McDonalds" cache there is nothing interesting about that.

That's why I think it's hard to define. I like the idea of letting the cache approvers putting questionable caches in the "Survey Says?" forum for feedback.

I see what people are getting at by trying to make a black and white definition, but I don't want to stifle people's creativity...

-exConn

What is Project Virginia?

March 20, 2002

quote:
We have had a seperate icon for letterbox caches for a long time. Anytime you include offsets or any kind of a map, you're essentially incorporating orienteering. There are now orienteering meets offering GPS-only courses along with traditional courses. The line between geocaching and these other sports is pretty fuzzy.

That's because geocaching has been combined with the other sports. It has also successfully been combined with rock climbing, hiking and mountain biking. In all cases though, a set of coordinates is used to find the cache, which is my point.

March 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:
What about letterbox caches that are essentially a multi-cache, but the only coords given are the starting point? The rest of the hunt involves using non-coordinate clues?

My point is that it is VERY HARD to define a geocache. By creating a hard-and-fast definition, and limiting all caches to that definition, we're stifling the creativity that has attracted many of us to the sport.

For a sport that isn't even 2 years old, it seems kind of odd that so many people want to restrict the sort of innovations that could make the game even more exciting and popular.

I feel wee need to think about the core question here. What is Geochaching... Period. that means we need clearly defined rules. And yes there can be specal exseptions like if someon had a great idea that fits the current coincenses, But we cant just let every idea that someone comes up with. If we do that, then eventuly will be so full of diffrent ideas on how the sport works, that no one will know whats going on, or how things are supposed to be.

In addition, yes we have been going, but in 2 years, wee alredy have a dozzen diffrent types of "caches", & half of then don't even use a GPS.

Now mind, I'm not condoning all need stash caches, in SOME cases, like the white house, or in a musem, you cant always leave a tupperwear container, but you found something really cool there. so you find the cord's and a uniqe mark in the area, then post that, but for a cache the be a cache you HAVE to need a GPS or it's simply a test of how you follow instructions.

Dark Noise

I am the king of pawns.

I am the sound that comes when the light is gone.

[This message was edited by Dark Noise on March 21, 2002 at 09:35 AM.]

March 20, 2002

Since I was quoted here, and have expressed my opinion in the other threads mentioned, I thought I should explain part of my motivation.

One of the reasons I feel as strongly as I do about this is that I am one of the individuals that approve caches. I am repeatedly making decisions about what is acceptable and what is not, and many of those decisions are based on my own prejudices and some basic guidelines given to me by Jeremy. Instead of having to explain over and over to people why I’m not approving their particular cache, I’d really like to see some basic criteria that this group can agree on.

With such a thing, those of us doing approvals will know that we are not only applying a consistent standard to everyone, but others would also understand why a particular decision was made.

For those that don’t realize it, there are many caches that are rejected every day due to their questionable nature. Most folks never see these, so have no idea just how common this is. Most of the time, it’s obvious that a cache should not be approved. Sometimes, however, I have had to ask Jeremy to give me his opinion on some that were questionable. This takes his time, which could be better spent on other things. The McDonalds listing that prompted the first poll is an example. While we all want to provide caches that people will enjoy, we also need to limit the listings to “real” caches. The problem is we really don’t have a clear definition of exactly what that is.

I’d hate to see a particular cache gets approved, but a substantially similar cache get denied solely based on who the reviewer is.

I guess you could say that I feel as strongly as I do about this because I want to insure I am being as fair as possible. For those that think we should all “worry about other things”, frankly I don’t have that luxury. I’m faced with this issue constantly.

I like the suggestion about a new cache type and a way to segment these from the rest of the site. Even so, there still needs to be standards about what that type of cache consists of. I’d like to suggest this be taken a step further and that Groundspeak create a separate website for such listings. Perhaps what we really have here is a new and different game and Jeremy, (or if not him, someone else) will create a new website for this. By designing from the ground up, the site could be made to fit the game instead of the game being made to fit the site as is being done with these now. Understand that I am talking specifically about listings that don’t use coordinates, not about all locationless caches. As far as I’m concerned, such caches that do use coordinates are fine as they are now.

The opinions expressed here are mine only and in no way represent those of Jeremy Irish, Grounded, Inc., or anyone else for that matter.

Thanks.

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

1.4k · March 20, 2002

Suppose someone posted the following cache:

quote:
Using Mapquest, Topozone, or a other means, determine the coordinates of two intersecting streets that begin with the same letter of the alphabet. Use your GPSr to go to those coordinates in order to log this cache...

Obviously, this would be a lame cache, but would this meet the "requires use of coordinates to locate the cache" criteria?

March 20, 2002

quote:
Suppose someone posted the following cache:
Using Mapquest, Topozone, or a other means, determine the coordinates of two intersecting streets that begin with the same letter of the alphabet. Use your GPSr to go to those coordinates in order to log this cache...

Obviously, this would be a lame cache, but would this meet the "requires use of coordinates to locate the cache" criteria?

It doesn't appear that coordinates are required or are a major component of the cache location. The goal is to take a picture of a GSP at a location where the intersecting streets begin with the same letter. Can such coordinates be determined by looking at one of the references online? Yes. Can such an intersection be found without using coordinates? Yes. It appears that coordinates are incidental to the cache location. So, IMO, the answer is no.

March 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:
Obviously, this would be a lame cache, but would this meet the "requires use of coordinates to locate the cache" criteria?

Yes, it meets that criteria, but another criteria that is already in place is that all virtual caches must have a method of verification. Until this cache had such a method, it would not be approved. That said, since it’s also entirely possible that we as approvers would have no way to know just how lame this cache was beforehand, it might well get listed if it had a verification method. I’d likely question it if I could tell anything from the listing, because I feel that all virtuals should have some redeeming feature other than a set of coordinates, but I have no control over the other approvers. This is another example where the guidelines are not clear.

The reality is that your example is not very different than caches we see every day, some of which do get approved. I also suspect that people would hunt it, flying in the face of the theory that lame caches will somehow go away. As we are oft fond of quoting here, "if you place it, they will come". My point is that the quality of the cache has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is hunted.

Frankly, I’m sometimes disappointed by lame cache submissions I’m seeing, (virtual and physical) but if it meets the basic criteria, it will get approved because we can’t start judging them based on worth. It would be next to impossible to do that in any kind of equitable way.

As I’m sure you realize, (I’m not sure if this was your point or not) there is no way we could enforce a “lameness” ban. We try our best to keep the really lame caches out, but some are going to slip through because we can’t tell enough from the listing. In the end, I suppose it’s better that some lame caches make it into the listings, than it would be if some good ones didn’t make it in.

By the way, I never meant to imply that the coordinate criterion was the only one involved here by the way. I think it ought to be an important one when looking at locationless virtuals, but it would not be the only thing used.

Thanks.

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

1.4k · March 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
By the way, I never meant to imply that the coordinate criterion was the only one involved here by the way. I think it ought to be an important one when looking at locationless virtuals, but it would not be the only thing used.

Thanks.

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

What are the current criteria for approving/disapproving a cache? The only information I could find is the "No Commercial Caches" disclaimer on the "Report a New Cache" page.

March 21, 2002

I think I have the say all end all about theses find a street & take a pic caches. On the FAQ page it's written quite plainly " The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches." http://www.geocaching.com/faq.asp

This means that a cache is something something at a set of cord's that you have to use the GPS to find. Not just to prove that you where there. It's also means that if the cache has no preset cord's, be that a starting point, offset, or the cache it's self, if there arn't cord's then it's not a cache.

Dark Noise

I am the king of pawns.

I am the sound that comes when the light is gone.

March 21, 2002

Here's an old thread that may be of some interest to people following this forum. It discusses appropriate virtual and event cache listings.

http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=7750950583

T-storm

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

March 21, 2002

Hello all!

Although a newbie, I can't resist commenting on this one.

Originally, I was of two minds on this question. On one hand, I thought, hey, if people want to go around the world taking pictures of McDonalds, corresponding with people in their sister cities, photographing yellow pickup trucks, etc. ... well, what do I care?

But it's certainly not geocaching ... geocaching involves a 'finder' using navigational aids to find a location based on a set of coordinates provided by a 'hider'. These other pasttimes are, well ... something else.

But, I thought, live and let live. It doesn't affect me.

Then I started thinking about the geocaching.com site; an essential tool of the pasttime. The rationale for paid membership (which I enthusiatically support) is to help defray the costs incurred, and labour carried out, by the site maintainers.

IMO, using bandwidth, as well as the time of the 'approvers' to promote something that is not geocaching undermines the site to the detriment of geocachers everywhere, and to the actual financial detriment of the paid members, who are now paying for space and bandwidth devoted to a game involving taking pictures of street signs with your name on them.

Ultimately, I guess it's up to the site maintainers as to what to post. I just wanted to voice my opinion as to "What consitutes a 'legitimate' cache".

My personal order of preference:

1) Don't approve anything that doesn't involve finding a location based on navigating to a physical location (hence 'geo') defined by coordinates provided by the hider.(Note that this still allows for virtual and event caches)

2) If they are approved, put them in a separate section (available using a separate search tool, so that results aren't intermingled)

3) At the very least, please give them a separate icon ... like a garbage can with a big red circle and slash through it.

Just my £0.02...

the tapir

March 21, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Misguided One:
A cache is a cache whether it is physical, virtual, post-a-photo-of..., or even a "reversed engineered" form of the game. Let this game evolve over time and the types of caches that are popular will prevail. Just because a cache doesn't meet the "basic definition" of what a cache "should" be, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered in the game.

Besides there are more important aspects of this game to worry about, such as convincing the NPS that we're not all evil meadow mashers.

My appologies for quoting myself if its poor ettiquette.

Having read through all the post in this string, I find myself changing my opinions, somewhat. Virtual caches I think are a necessity as far as the National Parks caches go. I am also slightly amused by the "Where's In A Name" cache, but I concede that some guidelines need to be established to prevent the rampent spread of "trash-caches".

I still don't think that any of us are blatant meadow mashers

Lost? I'm not lost. At least I don't think I'm lost, well............OK, maybe just a little.

1.1k · March 21, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by the tapir:
At the very least, _please_ give them a separate icon ... like a garbage can with a big red circle and slash through it.

LMAO at the icon suggestion!

What constitutes a "legitimate" cache?

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

Join the conversation