"Locationless" or better name?

[iryshe]

There was recently an email volley about "locationless" being a confusing term for what the idea is (tasked to find unique objects on the planet and log them with a GPS).

 

Should a locationless cache be called by another name? If you choose a new name idea, we will continue with a second poll.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+Doombot!]

"Global" caches might be better. I have logged locationless caches from many states, and several countrys. I get to be a (very small) part of someone's life and where they live vicariouly (sp.) through caches that both them and I place. [1st ]

 

Doombot!

[+Doombot!]

"Global" caches might be better. I have logged locationless caches from many states, and several countrys. I get to be a (very small) part of someone's life and where they live vicariouly (sp.) through caches that both them and I place. [1st ]

 

Doombot!

[+Renegade Knight]

Locationless and Virtual Caches have in common that they are not actually caches in the same sence as a traditioanl cache. They do involve aspects of the hunt though and keep to the spirt of the game. What I don't like about a locationless cache is that they are almost all required to be "One log per location" which is the opposite of every other cache out there. There is a quest involved to find something. Finding the object can be fun for everyone one. Maybe posting the pic and coordinates so only the owner can see would let everyone enjoy the caches? Locationless caches are really a scavenger hunt that you claim by posting a coordinate. "Scavenger Cache" is what a locationless cache is and it doesnt' sound any more goofy than any other name for the hunting of odd, unsual, and goofy things.

 

[This message was edited by Renegade Knight on July 14, 2002 at 10:09 PM.]

[+georgeandmary]

I voted for discovery... thats basically how I go for these. I discover them while out doing something else.

 

That leads me to another question I have but I'll leave that for another thread.

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

[+Markwell]

Locationless Caches (or whatever we call them - I voted for Discovery) are quite different from Virtuals.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+infosponge]

Change it to "backwards cache" or "reverse cache"...you find the spot and then you use the GPS, rather than the other way around.

Actually "postcard cache" works well too...essentially you're making a postcard of something and then posting where the photo was taken.

Some "locationless" caches are not backwards though...the ones that use math to get to a synthetic location are just as valid as a standard virtual cache because of the skills involved. Some of them probably take more effort because of all the pre-planning involved with maps and stuff before you even leave the house.

[+infosponge]

Change it to "backwards cache" or "reverse cache"...you find the spot and then you use the GPS, rather than the other way around.

Actually "postcard cache" works well too...essentially you're making a postcard of something and then posting where the photo was taken.

Some "locationless" caches are not backwards though...the ones that use math to get to a synthetic location are just as valid as a standard virtual cache because of the skills involved. Some of them probably take more effort because of all the pre-planning involved with maps and stuff before you even leave the house.

[+Clan Ferguson]

Make a seperate Section for them as they are not caches. Nothing to seek with a GPS nothing to Find, trade or sign.

 

They are like benchmarks.

 

They need thier own section.

 

P.S. Can we get a seperate listing or Icon for Mircos?

 

Cache On!!

 

James

"Big Dog"

-Clan Ferguson

[+Jamie Z]

As far as I can tell, the first use of the term "locationless" was in this thread on March 3, by Don&Betty.

 

-just some locationless history...

 

Jamie

[+seneca]

It has nothing to do with “caching” and therefore, as with “benchmarking”, the word “cache” should not be included in the name. This activity is all about seeking and waypointing a particular feature . I propose the following selection of names:

 

Nowns:. Geofeature; FeatureSite; FeaturePoint

 

Verbs: Geofeaturing; Feature-seeking ; FeatureSiting; FeatureSighting ; FeaturePointing;

 

 

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!)

[+seneca]

It has nothing to do with “caching” and therefore, as with “benchmarking”, the word “cache” should not be included in the name. This activity is all about seeking and waypointing a particular feature . I propose the following selection of names:

 

Nowns:. Geofeature; FeatureSite; FeaturePoint

 

Verbs: Geofeaturing; Feature-seeking ; FeatureSiting; FeatureSighting ; FeaturePointing;

 

 

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!)

[+EraSeek]

I have not given into these yet, but my first choice would be to call them 'Postcards' or 'Virtual Postcards' because that is what they are, but my second choice would be 'Reverse Waypoints (or caches)'.

 

[+gnbrotz]

Scavenger cache or

Reverse cache

 

That being said, I have not yet logged any locationless caches. I will be more inclined to do so AFTER the find counts are broken out into category. Right now I don't want to inflate my found count with them.

 

Greg

N 39° 54.705'

W 77° 33.137'

[+tntyz]

I like the sound of "Reverse Caching", but that might be confused with hiding a cached as opposed to finding one.

 

My vote shouldn't count as a full one, though, because L-caching doesn't sound like that much fun to me.

 

Tony

[+EraSeek]

Another option might be a ''Reverse Vitual''.

 

[+Texas-Gal]

I've only just started geocaching - haven't even gotten a find yet! - so my opinion may not be worth much, but...

 

I think separating the scavenger-type caches out will be very beneficial: without that seperate category, they are quite difficult to find. I've run across a few of them, and they look like fun, but would love to have a better way to access them.

[+Team Sand Dollar]

I'm not concerned with what they are called. I just feel that they belong in there own section. I know this is not supposed to be a numbers game but locationless caches do tend to inflate a teams number of finds. I noticed today that one team has claimed 15 finds on the same location less cache on the same day.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Team Sand Dollar

[Steak N Eggs]

It still refers to a location, but not a physical cache. Those type of caches are a "Non-Physcal" cache, meaning you cant log in a logbook/trade out items at THE SITE. What to call them is a hard order to fill. I think the name has to do something that describes that kind of cache. Locationless IMO does not fit the bill, but can't think of anything better right now.....

 

"My gps say's it RIGHT HERE".

http://www.geogadgets.com

[+MartyFouts]

Locationless caches seem to me to be most like scavenger hunting with a gps, so I propose geoscavenging

 

Marty

[+yrium]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

 

Locationless caches are really a scavenger hunt that you claim by posting a coordinate. "Scavenger Cache" is what a locationless cache is and it doesnt' sound any more goofy than any other name for the hunting of odd, unsual, and goofy things.

 

---

 

I'll second Renegade Knight's suggestion of calling them Scavenger Caches. That's what I've been using in my mind whenever I think about them.

 

--- yrium ---

[+Kouros]

I voted to leave it as it is.

 

Is the word "Locationless" *really* that confusing? At least it sums up a little about the cache idea... that it is without a location.

 

"Discovery" doesn't really do the same - since all caches are discovered, to a certain extent, by the finder.

 

"Scavenger Hunt" would probably be the other best alternative.

 

------

O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.

 

Hamlet, II.2 252-253

[+briansnat]

I think the term Reverse Cache is a good one.

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

[Norm DePlume]

I think changing what you call them is WAY less important than changing the system so they don't get included in the find counts with other types of geocaches. They should either be counted separately, or not at all.

[+jhwf44]

Yeah, I would prioritize changing the system higher then the name.

 

jhwf4

[+Team StitchesOnQuilts]

I agree - being able to have those counted separately means more to me than the name.

 

However, if we're going to change the name, I really like the Scavenger Cache and geoscavenging ideas. I would be significantly more likely to participate if the name was changed. It just sounds more fun than "locationless". It's also easier to sell the idea to my kids, who understand what a scavenger hunt is, but have no idea how one would even go about looking for something that has no location. "Does that mean it doesn't exist, Mom? Why can't we hunt a real cache, Mom?" (They're 7 and 5 - abstract concepts are still a bit hard for them.)

 

Shannah

[+MissJenn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

Locationless caches are really a scavenger hunt that you claim by posting a coordinate. "Scavenger Cache" is what a locationless cache is and it doesnt' sound any more goofy than any other name

---

 

I like SCAVENGER cache best, although I think I had already previously voted for Discovery cache ...

 

-----

You must be present to win.

[+Web-ling]

I vote for Scavenger Caches. I also vote for a separate section and separate stats. I'd feel a lot more comfortable logging them if the stats were separated.

 

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

quote:

---

Yeah, I would prioritize changing the system higher then the name.

---

I suggest if numbers are really important to you that you do something where numbers matter, like bowling.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[+SimonG]

Since they don't have a waypoint, how about Pointless Caches?

 

SimonG

[+SimonG]

Since they don't have a waypoint, how about Pointless Caches?

 

SimonG