Locationless geocaches.

[+ClayJar]

Okay, I did some searching and didn't come up with any good threads about "locationless caches". They've been commented on here and there, but no directed discussion specifically about the concept seems apparent. So here goes.

 

What is a locationless cache?

Before we can discuss the merits of locationless caches, we must first have a definition of just what a locationless cache is. A locationless cache is any cache where the hider does not know all the coordinates.

 

Pros of locationless caches:

There are several advantages to well-conceived locationless caches. Prime among these is the availability of the cache. Instead of being confined to one location, the cache is shared among all possible locations. The wide availability of a locationless cache means that cachers everywhere can interact via the logs, and community is the driving force of geocaching.

 

Another advantage of locationless caches is that they add creativity to the list of skills required to log a find. Instead of being handed all the coordinates on a platter, the prospective hider must do at least a little work to find a place to log the cache on their own. This also adds to the community aspect, as the various cachers will log the cache in their various ways.

 

Cons of locationless caches:

Based on the merits alone, it would seem that locationless caches would be a good idea, but for every coin, there are two sides. One primary problem cachers may have with locationless caches is that, by their very nature, they are not like any other geocaches. There are, in essence, no coordinates to the caches, and in that way they differ from all other caches. On the other hand, locationless caches are simply a logical extension of virtual caches, and so, there is a known link back to "pure" geocaching (and we wouldn't want to limit ourselves to "pure" geocaching, as that would rule out all multis, all offsets, and all other creative and fun caches).

 

A far greater problem with locationless caches is the exclusivity of finding some of them that has been mandated by the respective "hiders". If a "hider" of a locationless cache disallows anyone from logging a find on a given location because it has already been logged, they have, in no uncertain terms, moved against the very thing that makes the geocaching community run. Only allowing one log per location is the "hider"-madated equivalent of plundering the cache on every visit. While there have been one-time-use caches (merits notwithstanding), there is nothing that says that a finder cannot trade and leave even those, and such has happened in my state with one such cache.

 

Parting thoughts on locationless caches:

Any (legal and allowed) cache that adds to the community is a good thing. Locationless caches such as A Cache of Palindromes (mode 2) and Hometown (Where Yall From)

add to the game and do not prohibit multiple logs on the same location. They are "open-find" locationless caches.

 

Conversely, caches such as My Town's Namesake and NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB Sports Nut Cache. (archived) which prohibit more than one cacher from logging a given find are exclusive and therefore bad caches. They are "exclusive-find" locationless caches.

 

The fundamental basis of geocaching is the community, and by saying, as "My Town's Namesake" does, that you can only log this if nobody else has (and if you want to log a really neat spot in a city you're not from, tough cookies), that community is harmed by the exclusivity.

 

Conclusions:

On the basis of the points above, I propose that exclusive-find locationless caches are not caches at all, but merely a way of compiling waypoint lists. These caches should either be modified to be open-find locationless caches or be archived. It is perfectly fair to ask cachers to try to log unlogged locations, but to mandate it is to step over the line.

 

Open-find locationless caches, on the other hand, are merely a logical extension of virtual caches. It would be beneficial to have a special type icon for locationless caches, for the benefit of cachers who would like or not like to search for them, but there is nothing about them which should prohibit them from being listed -- we're far beyond "pure" geocaching.

 

Poll question:

Should geocaching.com allow locationless caches?

[+Markwell]

I know I'm going to sound defensive, but I'm going to clarify anyway.

 

Based on your definitions, I would want to stress that the Photographer's Caches (1-10) are then not Locationless Caches, and definitely not an exclusive Locationless Cache.

 

There is a direct spot that you are being directed to move toward. I am trying to make it so that hiders of the Photographer's Caches use hints instead of out-and-out telling people where they are. Through hopefully diligent research, people are getting precise coordinates (or within the definite range) and leading Geocachers to a particular view or vista. Then, they move it. Kinda of a Moving Virtual Cache.

 

These caches are also non-exclusive, in that the photo and the find claim can continue to be logged by an endless stream of Geocachers until the point that the cache is virtually moved by the first finder. A prime example is The Photographer’s Cache VII which sat at the Olympic Cauldron in Salt Lake City for almost three weeks and was logged 6 times before moving half-way around the world.

 

That being said, I don't really have an opinion on the other "Locationless Cache" so I'm abstaining. I would have hated to have been the person who voted against setting up virtual caches when they were in their infancy.

 

Markwell

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

[+ClayJar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markwell:

Based on your definitions, I would want to stress that the Photographer's Caches (1-10) are then __not__ Locationless Caches, and definitely not an exclusive Locationless Cache.

---

The Photographer's Caches would best be described as "muti-hider moving virtual caches". Just because the effective hider and coordinates can change doesn't make it locationless.

 

For another example, look at Impress Me Cache. It's a moving physical cache. It is not a locationless cache. (Notice the definition intentionally avoids saying "original hider".)

[+Prime Suspect]

First off, the My Town's Namesake cache is also flawed because it excludes people who live in towns (like me) where no one knows for certain where the name originates. That's right. Believe it or not, there's no definitive answer to the question of who Dallas, Tx is named after. At one time, it was thought to be named after a US Vice President, but that theory's been pretty well shot down.

 

Now as to locationless caches, I'm not sure GeoCaching.com is the place for them. The entire concept of the game based around locating an item or place, based on posted coordinates and clues. These caches obviously fall outside that scope.

 

I'm not saying they don't have value, I'm just saying I'm not sure they belong here. It really sounds more like what's going on at waypoint.com.

 

[+Whidbey Walk]

Prime Suspect

I think you ment waypoint.org. I was a little confused when I went to waypoint.com.

 

[+Whidbey Walk]

Prime Suspect

I think you ment waypoint.org. I was a little confused when I went to waypoint.com.

 

[+Brokenwing]

I'm not sure I’d agree that the deciding factor is open vs. closed logging. In my mind, the real issue is whether or not one must navigate to a set of coordinates to locate the “cache”

 

As an example, the palindrome cache does require one to do this, even if there are multiple coordinates that could satisfy the requirements. To log it, one still has to enter coordinates into a GPSr and navigate to a specific spot. You may or may not know what you will encounter there. This is really no different than any legitimate physical or virtual cache. As such, “A cache of Palindromes” passes my “legitimacy” test.

 

Alternately, all the other caches you mentioned, allow someone to find an place or thing and log that place or thing as a cache. In these “caches”, the use of coordinates is secondary if they are even used at all. The basic premise being that you find a known, (sometimes lesser known) place or thing and post coordinates to it. This is not at all the same game as using coordinates to find a spot on the earth.

 

Bottom line, the dividing line for me is whether or not coordinates are used to find the place or thing.

 

Thanks,

Scott

 

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

[Zuckerruebensirup]

I think some of the locationless caches are very cool, and others are pretty lame. I imagine that others' opinions on the particular caches will vary widely. In my opinion, they should be allowed, and those who don't feel they are valid, don't have to participate in or log them. (I've seen some who log them only with a note, so as not to artificially inflate their number of finds.) I also think that Jeremy's recent polling of the general public's opinion of certain 'borderline' locationless caches is a good idea as well.

[+shybabe924]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

First off, the My Town's Namesake cache is also flawed because it excludes people who live in towns (like me) where no one knows for certain where the name originates.

---

 

I second that! My city is Baton Rouge which is named after the red bloody pole that was placed in the land by the indians to mark their territory! It wasn't named after ANYONE, and I emailed the cache creator and basically the reply was that I'm just screwed!

 

I also think that this virtual cache was a copycat of sorts of the Hometown cache!

 

Just my 2+ cents

 

Shybabe924

[+shybabe924]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

First off, the My Town's Namesake cache is also flawed because it excludes people who live in towns (like me) where no one knows for certain where the name originates.

---

 

I second that! My city is Baton Rouge which is named after the red bloody pole that was placed in the land by the indians to mark their territory! It wasn't named after ANYONE, and I emailed the cache creator and basically the reply was that I'm just screwed!

 

I also think that this virtual cache was a copycat of sorts of the Hometown cache!

 

Just my 2+ cents

 

Shybabe924

[+Geo Leo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Thomason:

Bottom line, the dividing line for me is whether or not coordinates are used __to find__ the place or thing.

 

---

 

I agree. I would consider caches like A Cache of Palindromes, 911 cache, or the NGS Benchmark cache to be "multiple location virtual caches" moreso than "locationless caches." They all require the finder to use a GPSR to locate specific qualifying locations by their coordinates, even though there may be many locations that may qualify. I have found this type of cache to be both fun and challenging, and an interesting twist to traditional virtual caches.

 

However, caches that you find without a GPS, such as the Hometown cache, or the Yellow Jeep cache really don't have anything to do with using a GPSR at all. Getting your picture taken holding your GPSR in front of a particular item that you located without the use of your GPSR just doesn't make a lot of sense, and it sure doesn't seem like geocaching to me.

 

[This message was edited by Geo Leo on March 16, 2002 at 09:15 PM.]

[+Web-ling]

First, I think we need to differentiate between using a GPSr to find a cache and using the coordinates to find a cache. Most caches can be found without a GPSr, through the use of topo maps, aerials etc. The issue is the coordinates, not the GPSr.

 

I tend to think that multiple-location virtual caches are OK. You still have to use the coordinates to log the cache. Admittedly, I'm a bit biased, as the A Pair of Quintuplets cache is one of mine.

 

As far as the truly "locationless" caches, where you find a place then get the coords: I've done a few, and I think they can be fun. Some have been pretty lame, but the same can be said for traditional caches, too.

 

Maybe there needs to be a special category made up for multiple-location and locationless caches. I'd hate to see these banned. Once we start banning certain types of caches, we've opened a Pandora's Box of sorts. What would happen next? What's to keep a vocal minority from banning other types of caches? Maybe ALL virtual caches? Maybe all caches with offsets? Maybe all caches made of Tupperware? Who knows?

 

One of the best parts of geocaching, to me, is the creativity involved in all of the different types of caches I've seen. Sometimes the creativity backfires, and you end up with a lame cache, or something that just plain doesn't work. Sometimes they end up being so easy, you can log the cache without ever leaving the house. But sometimes you end up with a cache that is a work of art - something that makes you scratch your head and think, "How the heck did they ever come up with such a brilliant idea?" I'd hate to stifle that kind of creativity by making stipulations that if a cache doesn't meet requirements X, Y, and Z, it isn't a cache. Obviously, there have to be some standards, from a legal and ethical standpoint. No caches in National Parks, no caches in illegal locations, etc. But to ban caches because they don't measure up to somebody's standard of what a "good" cache should be? I have a real problem with that.

 

As it has been stated so many times before, "If you don't like it, don't hunt it." Eventually, the bad ideas will go away, and the best ideas will rise to the top, inspiring even better ideas. How many really stupid ideas did various inventors attempt before the Wright Brothers finally got an airplane off the ground? Thousands. I would like to think that there is enough room in geocaching for all of us, even those of us who don't always approach things the same way as everyone else.

 

[+GOT GPS?]

I think that these caches, that can be found first without the GPS, are caches that should not be directly on Geocaching.com, but be sidelinked. Meaning that they are on another part of geocaching.com, and that would be called Interesting use of GPS.com(interestinguseofgps.com). These caches would show up as a blue colored number separate from the physical cache logs.

Example:

Caches placed/Found/Other:

7/55/6

 

[+Geo Leo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Web-ling:

I tend to think that multiple-location virtual caches are OK. You still have to use the coordinates to log the cache. Admittedly, I'm a bit biased, as the http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=13198 cache is one of mine.

 

---

 

I forgot about A Pair of Quintuplets. That's one of the multiple location virtual caches that I have done, and I enjoyed it very much. (Thanks Web-ling).

 

Also, I'm not saying that the locationless caches should be banned either. I have done one or two of those that were okay. I just don't think that they are in the same class as the others. I'm sure Jeremy will come up with new categories for different types of caches as we go.

[+glenn95630]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClayJar:

...It would be beneficial to have a special type icon for locationless caches...

---

 

I agree with that. I also think they should have their own special coordinates (or no coordinates at all). It bothers me (although I know it shouldn't) that the world map shows a group of geocaches at 0,0 in the middle of the ocean.

 

My opinion on the locationless caches? They have not sparked my interest enough to hunt them, but I don't think they should be banned.

[+rdw]

Exclusivity is not always a bad thing. Exclusivity can keep a cache from being too easy, as in the case of my Don't Know Much About History. Part of the effort required to claim a find is locating a unique marker. If everyone in a particular area visited the same marker that someone had previously posted the coordinates to, the cache would be so easy it would be unworthy of a find. In addition, having cachers log different markers keeps the cache interesting for them, me, and anyone else who might read the logs.

 

Exclusivity becomes a problem when it prevents other cachers in an area from being able to log a find for the cache. This would be a problem for the Sport Nut Cache and the Namesake cache. It should not be a problem for my cache though, since there is likely another historical marker nearby. Nor would exclusivity be a problem for a cache like the NGS Benchmark Recovery Cache where there are many possible markers to log.

 

A good rule of thumb for whether exclusivity would be a problem is to ask yourself, "Will this cause a race to log it?" If yes, bad. If no, good.

 

rdw

[Eric O'Connor]

hehe...

 

If you like chasing random waypoints....

 

Scout came up with a brand new game.

 

This isn't geodashing, it's a globally based "Capture the Flag" spinoff.

 

http://MinuteWar.org

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClayJar:

I did some searching and didn't come up with any good threads about "locationless caches". They've been commented on here and there, but no directed discussion specifically about the concept seems apparent.

---

 

I wonder whether you never noticed this thread, or if you just felt we hadn't adequately discussed the "concept" of locationless caches there, as opposed to simply sharing links? I would have thought that thread would have been a good place to pose the question you brought up here.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rdw:

Exclusivity can keep a cache from being too easy. If everyone in a particular area visited the same marker that someone had previously posted the coordinates to, the cache would be so easy it would be unworthy of a find. In addition, having cachers log different markers keeps the cache interesting for them, me, and anyone else who might read the logs.

---

 

I agree with rdw. In cases of caches such as "Hometown", there are various ways to interpret it: the town you were born in, grew up in, spent the last umpteen years in, etc. If someone has already taken 'your' hometown, chances are you could choose something else. (Plus, isn't there something to be said about the early bird getting the worm? )

 

Anyway, almost ALL caches exclude many cachers, at least in the practical sense, merely by proximity. Chances are that most of us will never have a reasonable opportunity to log a cache posted in Iceland. Does that mean caches should be 'disallowed' there? Of course not!

 

By default, there's no way to make this game 'fair' or equal to everyone. In my opinion, if a virtual cache is created with the obvious intention of excluding certain cachers, then it shouldn't be allowed. If it's something that can be logged by a large many, than it shouldn't be banned, simply for that reason. In the case of something like who your hometown is named after, I understand that doesn't apply to ALL hometowns, but I have to agree with those who've said that's just the luck of the draw. There are plenty of other caches out there that you CAN log. One extra for some others shouldn't offend you. (Plus, similar to the Hometown cache, if you interpret how to decide what you call your hometown, there's probably an option available that you could log.)

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rdw:

Exclusivity can keep a cache from being too easy. If everyone in a particular area visited the same marker that someone had previously posted the coordinates to, the cache would be so easy it would be unworthy of a find. In addition, having cachers log different markers keeps the cache interesting for them, me, and anyone else who might read the logs.

---

 

I agree with rdw. In cases of caches such as "Hometown", there are various ways to interpret it: the town you were born in, grew up in, spent the last umpteen years in, etc. If someone has already taken 'your' hometown, chances are you could choose something else. (Plus, isn't there something to be said about the early bird getting the worm? )

 

Anyway, almost ALL caches exclude many cachers, at least in the practical sense, merely by proximity. Chances are that most of us will never have a reasonable opportunity to log a cache posted in Iceland. Does that mean caches should be 'disallowed' there? Of course not!

 

By default, there's no way to make this game 'fair' or equal to everyone. In my opinion, if a virtual cache is created with the obvious intention of excluding certain cachers, then it shouldn't be allowed. If it's something that can be logged by a large many, than it shouldn't be banned, simply for that reason. In the case of something like who your hometown is named after, I understand that doesn't apply to ALL hometowns, but I have to agree with those who've said that's just the luck of the draw. There are plenty of other caches out there that you CAN log. One extra for some others shouldn't offend you. (Plus, similar to the Hometown cache, if you interpret how to decide what you call your hometown, there's probably an option available that you could log.)

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Thomason:

In my mind, the real issue is whether or not one must navigate to a set of coordinates to locate the “cache”. [in] the caches that allow someone to find an place or thing and log that place or thing as a cache, the use of coordinates is secondary if they are even used at all. The basic premise being that you find a known, (sometimes lesser known) place or thing and post coordinates to it. This is not at all the same game as using coordinates to find a spot on the earth.

---

 

I think that's a very good point. For me, though, one of the things I've enjoyed about Geocaching, is the chance to see new places I might not have otherwise been aware of. (Or even in cases where I'm not close enough to go find the cache myself, it's interesting to read other people's reactions to some of the cool places others place caches in.)

 

For some of these 'non-caches', if you will, the original person might not have had to use their GPSr, but perhaps if the place sounds interesting, others might be able to take the coordinates posted, and go check the place out. In my mind, that's a positive contribution to the community.

[+bspeng]

I prefer the term "do anywhere" over location-less, but, that's a different topic.

 

Prime, quintuplets, where's in a name, 911, where's my name have the advantage of having limitless choices. This is good, not only as exercise in map research, but, great Winter-time caches.

 

Caches such as Don't know history, Georgia Historic markers, Sisters and Not so Famous Town have a finite number of choices, but, there's plenty to go around. The requirement to select unfound caches is part of the quest. These are okay.

 

Caches such Hometown, Geo-center & Population-center, My Towns Namesake are too limiting, when there's no point. There's no good reason to limit the number of participants. It's just rude and it generates bad feelings: "I won 'cause I'm first; you lose, go away". This would be similar to the confluence project, except that the confluence project will accept entries to already found locations. Why not? It's a Virtual cache, the reward IS the location.

 

In closing, I wish that the latter cache owners would read this and update their caching requirements to accept everyone. I don't want them to feel bullied.

 

~bspeng

[+ClayJar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

I wonder whether you never noticed http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=1980966883&m=9450936793&r=2120966504#2120966504 thread, or if you just felt we hadn't adequately discussed the "concept" of locationless caches there, as opposed to simply sharing links? I would have thought that thread would have been a good place to pose the question you brought up here.

---

Actually, I saw that. A conceptual discussion of locationless caches would have been off-topic for that thread. In addition, it is in "The Unusual", which is not the place for general discussion of concepts (unless they are concepts regarding UFO-proofing GPS receivers, but we've already had that discussion. )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Anyway, almost ALL caches exclude many cachers, at least in the practical sense, merely by proximity. Chances are that most of us will never have a reasonable opportunity to log a cache posted in Iceland. Does that mean caches should be 'disallowed' there? Of course not!

---

That is going beyond the exclusivity issue discussed here. The issue is not that some caches are extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a cacher to get to. I've placed some rather handy ones myself, and I've read about some real doozies.

 

The problem is not that exclusive caches like "Namesake" are hard or impossible to log; rather, the problem is that cachers are arbitrarily denied even the opportunity to try. If I make a cache that requires an ultralight aircraft, scuba gear, a small boat, and a few weeks of work on a really hairy cipher, that's perfectly fair. Anyone who is enough of a raving lunatic cacher (like I aspire to one day become) can go through the effort of finding it. On the other hand, if I put a cache out on my front porch and say "only cachers with a nickname that starts with a letter not yet logged can log this, and all others are simply out of luck", that's not fair.

 

It's not the difficulty (or terrain) that makes a cache unfair; it's the disen-cache-izing of cachers for no valid reason. (Any and all cachers are welcome to fail in the hunt for my 5/5 when it comes out. )

quote:

---

Originally posted by bspeng:

Caches such as Don't know history, Georgia Historic markers, Sisters and Not so Famous Town have a finite number of choices, but, there's plenty to go around. The requirement to select unfound caches is part of the quest. These are okay.

---

For these caches, I'd feel better if these caches would *request* finders log unlogged points, rather than *require* it. They can even say something like, "If you log a previously logged point, it's not really a find, is it?" but to delete duplicates would be venturing pretty close to the slippery slope.

 

That said, I'd trust the approvers on this one if a solid line cannot be drawn. I'd prefer a solid line so that everyone is on the same page, but I understand that we are human and that, in this, there are shades of grey. I'd have nothing against a cache hider giving special rewards to the first loggers, just as I have no problem with hiders leaving a special "first-finder trinket" in a cache. It's their perogative, but when it comes to deciding what's okay and what isn't, having a rule regarding exclusivity would seem like a good idea (or at least the best compromise between creativity in hiding and availability for finding).

 

Here's a little idea for us regarding "exclusive-find" locationless caches: Take something, leave something. With exclusive-find locationless caches, once someone has "taken something" (the found log for a given point), there is nothing left. The "hider" has then madated that nothing be left, which is against the spirit of geocaching.

[+ClayJar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

I wonder whether you never noticed http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=1980966883&m=9450936793&r=2120966504#2120966504 thread, or if you just felt we hadn't adequately discussed the "concept" of locationless caches there, as opposed to simply sharing links? I would have thought that thread would have been a good place to pose the question you brought up here.

---

Actually, I saw that. A conceptual discussion of locationless caches would have been off-topic for that thread. In addition, it is in "The Unusual", which is not the place for general discussion of concepts (unless they are concepts regarding UFO-proofing GPS receivers, but we've already had that discussion. )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Anyway, almost ALL caches exclude many cachers, at least in the practical sense, merely by proximity. Chances are that most of us will never have a reasonable opportunity to log a cache posted in Iceland. Does that mean caches should be 'disallowed' there? Of course not!

---

That is going beyond the exclusivity issue discussed here. The issue is not that some caches are extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a cacher to get to. I've placed some rather handy ones myself, and I've read about some real doozies.

 

The problem is not that exclusive caches like "Namesake" are hard or impossible to log; rather, the problem is that cachers are arbitrarily denied even the opportunity to try. If I make a cache that requires an ultralight aircraft, scuba gear, a small boat, and a few weeks of work on a really hairy cipher, that's perfectly fair. Anyone who is enough of a raving lunatic cacher (like I aspire to one day become) can go through the effort of finding it. On the other hand, if I put a cache out on my front porch and say "only cachers with a nickname that starts with a letter not yet logged can log this, and all others are simply out of luck", that's not fair.

 

It's not the difficulty (or terrain) that makes a cache unfair; it's the disen-cache-izing of cachers for no valid reason. (Any and all cachers are welcome to fail in the hunt for my 5/5 when it comes out. )

quote:

---

Originally posted by bspeng:

Caches such as Don't know history, Georgia Historic markers, Sisters and Not so Famous Town have a finite number of choices, but, there's plenty to go around. The requirement to select unfound caches is part of the quest. These are okay.

---

For these caches, I'd feel better if these caches would *request* finders log unlogged points, rather than *require* it. They can even say something like, "If you log a previously logged point, it's not really a find, is it?" but to delete duplicates would be venturing pretty close to the slippery slope.

 

That said, I'd trust the approvers on this one if a solid line cannot be drawn. I'd prefer a solid line so that everyone is on the same page, but I understand that we are human and that, in this, there are shades of grey. I'd have nothing against a cache hider giving special rewards to the first loggers, just as I have no problem with hiders leaving a special "first-finder trinket" in a cache. It's their perogative, but when it comes to deciding what's okay and what isn't, having a rule regarding exclusivity would seem like a good idea (or at least the best compromise between creativity in hiding and availability for finding).

 

Here's a little idea for us regarding "exclusive-find" locationless caches: Take something, leave something. With exclusive-find locationless caches, once someone has "taken something" (the found log for a given point), there is nothing left. The "hider" has then madated that nothing be left, which is against the spirit of geocaching.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClayJar:

 

Actually, I saw that. A conceptual discussion of locationless caches would have been off-topic for that thread. In addition, it is in "The Unusual", which is not the place for general discussion of concepts (unless they are concepts regarding UFO-proofing GPS receivers, but we've already had that discussion. )

---

 

Ah. I was thinking of "Unusual" as in "not your usual type of cache." In any case, I've definitely noticed that discussion threads posted under the General forum seem to get a lot more hits than those posted under the other categories.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClayJar:

 

Actually, I saw that. A conceptual discussion of locationless caches would have been off-topic for that thread. In addition, it is in "The Unusual", which is not the place for general discussion of concepts (unless they are concepts regarding UFO-proofing GPS receivers, but we've already had that discussion. )

---

 

Ah. I was thinking of "Unusual" as in "not your usual type of cache." In any case, I've definitely noticed that discussion threads posted under the General forum seem to get a lot more hits than those posted under the other categories.

[+kbraband]

I created a locationless cache for Wisconsin called Wisonsin's Rustic Roads. The idea is to find one or two of the nearly 100 officially designated Rustic Roads in this state, mark the coordinates of each end, and post along with your photo by a Rustic Road sign. I stipulated that each rustic road could only be claimed once, and also that each cacher could claim no more than 2 rustic roads. I did this not to limit the game, but to be more inclusive and encourage as many cachers as possible to go out and claim their own rustic road. If there were no limits I don't think this cache would have the same appeal.

[Night Crawlers]

Buxley's has a great list of "Locationless" or "Do Anywhere" Geocaches. Some of the ones listed on Buxley's page were not/are not addressed in this thread or the other threads on the board so I though I would add this link for fellow geocachers Enjoyment. You can check out the page at Buxley's or you can use this link http://www.brillig.com/geocaching/special.shtml.

 

FGA - Florida Geocaching Assoc.

[+Web-ling]

I've actually used my GPSr more often to log finds for "anywhere" caches than for more traditional ones. So far, I've found 10 "anywhere" caches, and used my GPSr in order to log 5 of them, or 50% of the time. I've also found 140 "single location" caches, and only used my GPSr for 52 of them, or 37% of the time.

 

[+CacheCows]

Let me start by saying we are simply sharing the conclusion that we have come to, and by no means are we recommending or implying that others should do the same. After reading these and other related posts, and also considering the roots of this activity, we have decided to use the following guideline:

 

The GPSR must be used to lead you to a location, as opposed to not being used until after you get to the destination.

 

Put another way, the co-ordiantes should be an input to the find, not an output. Many of the locationless caches meet the guideline we are using. Take for example the Prime Choices cache; once you have decided on a set of co-ordinates of which at least one element of the pair is a prime number, then you enter those co-ordinates into your GPSR and head off to that site. The GPSR and the co-ordiantes lead us to the location.

 

Accordingly, we have decided to go back and delete our found it logs on any locationless caches we have done that don't meet our guideline, with one or two sepcial event exceptions. This is simply the action we have chosen based on these threads, not something we are advocating. Thanks to all who contributed to these threads, it helped us come to a grounding...

 

_________________________________

Member: