Should THIS cache be posted, or not?

May 25, 2002

I posted the following cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=23541

and it has been disapproved as "too elitist". I would appreciate feedback from other cachers on this. I have discussed it with other local cachers, and they all wanted SOMONE to do it, so they could log it themselves, when they became eligible.

bunkerdave

May 25, 2002

I think it's a great idea and I voted to post it.

I'd much rather see it posted as it is than posted as a MOCache.

I don't see any problem with giving someone a little extra "incentive" to visit all the counties in your state. A visitor to the state couldn't necessarily log the cache but as for a newbie...some hard work on their part and they certainly could; and after logging your cache they'd hardly be considered newbies!

Sure is tough trying to figure out what is "elitist" around here.

May 25, 2002

I think it's a great idea and I voted to post it.

I'd much rather see it posted as it is than posted as a MOCache.

I don't see any problem with giving someone a little extra "incentive" to visit all the counties in your state. A visitor to the state couldn't necessarily log the cache but as for a newbie...some hard work on their part and they certainly could; and after logging your cache they'd hardly be considered newbies!

Sure is tough trying to figure out what is "elitist" around here.

May 25, 2002

I see no problem. Many Geocachers are looking for something different and this looks to be something of interest to many. As a Ham Radio operator, one of our many radio pastimes is "Worked All Counties" and "Worked All States" among others. I see some empty counties in some states and think this is a great incentive to get some more territory covered.

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

May 25, 2002

I see nothing wrong w/ it. When you said too elitest I was thinking of a cache in an exclusive location that you need something like $100,000 to join.

-------> Did you ever do any trail maintainence? - if so you will know that all but the most worn trails need continuous maintenance to prevent mother nature from reclaiming it. herd paths are quickly reclaimed - k2dave to a troll

7.2k · May 25, 2002

I voted no. There is no specific container to find to log this cache, nor is there an interesting spot that someone wants to point out that most people miss that requires an answer to PROVE that you were there. This cache definately does not conform to the guidelines that are being discussed in another thread in this same *General* forum about locationless cache requirements. Based on all of this it is not a cache, but it rather sounds more like a Utah Tourism Council commercial. I would like to visit a cache in every state eventually, but I do not think that this idea or goal should be a *locationless cache*. It should just be a personal goal.

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

May 25, 2002

How about this one:

"If YOU have done the following:

Found 300 caches;
Hidden 25 caches;
Posted 500 posts to the forum;
Hosted two geocaching activities;
Signed up five new subscribing members;

Then YOU too can have the honour of obtaining the co-ordinates to my special cache!"

This sounds pretty elitest to me. (maybe not a bad idea, but not for a cache - locationless or not)

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!)

1.1k · May 25, 2002

It sounds to me like at least a couple of people didn't read the cache description closely. (Either that, or bunkerdave has updated the description since they left their comments.)

Here's an excerpt from the cache description:

I will verify that you have logged them on the website, and then I will send you the minutes part of the coordinates for the cache, where you can claim your prize. It isn't much, but you don't have to trade for it, either. Just take the one you like best, and leave the rest.

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
I voted no. There is no specific container to find to log this cache,

Sure there is! (How else are you going to take something from it, and leave the rest?)

quote:
nor is there an interesting spot that someone wants to point out that most people miss that requires an answer to PROVE that you were there. This cache definately does not conform to the guidelines that are being discussed in another thread in this same *General* forum about locationless cache requirements.

It's NOT locationless. Once a person has met the prerequisites, they will get the the actual coordinates. Signing the logbook will be the PROOF of your visit...no need to answer a question.

quote:
Based on all of this it is not a cache

Why not?

quote:
I do not think that this idea or goal should be a *locationless cache*. It should just be a personal goal.

I assume the "goal" refered to here is logging a cache from each county. However, that's not what earns a find on this cache, it's just the key to unlock the door.

Seneca also seems to have interpreted it similarly:

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

(maybe not a bad idea, but not for a cache - locationless or not)

But then he DID seem to notice the part about getting the coordinates to the cache ("Then YOU too can have the honour of obtaining the co-ordinates to my special cache!" )...so I'm not sure why he mentioned locationless.

Personally, I think it's a cool idea. I think more people have a chance at logging this one than some of the 5/5's that require rock climbing and scuba equipement. (If we're going to deny caches because they aren't practical for "everybody" to log, then the cache list would be a LOT smaller.)

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

[This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on May 25, 2002 at 04:32 PM.]

1.1k · May 25, 2002

It sounds to me like at least a couple of people didn't read the cache description closely. (Either that, or bunkerdave has updated the description since they left their comments.)

Here's an excerpt from the cache description:

I will verify that you have logged them on the website, and then I will send you the minutes part of the coordinates for the cache, where you can claim your prize. It isn't much, but you don't have to trade for it, either. Just take the one you like best, and leave the rest.

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
I voted no. There is no specific container to find to log this cache,

Sure there is! (How else are you going to take something from it, and leave the rest?)

quote:
nor is there an interesting spot that someone wants to point out that most people miss that requires an answer to PROVE that you were there. This cache definately does not conform to the guidelines that are being discussed in another thread in this same *General* forum about locationless cache requirements.

It's NOT locationless. Once a person has met the prerequisites, they will get the the actual coordinates. Signing the logbook will be the PROOF of your visit...no need to answer a question.

quote:
Based on all of this it is not a cache

Why not?

quote:
I do not think that this idea or goal should be a *locationless cache*. It should just be a personal goal.

I assume the "goal" refered to here is logging a cache from each county. However, that's not what earns a find on this cache, it's just the key to unlock the door.

Seneca also seems to have interpreted it similarly:

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

(maybe not a bad idea, but not for a cache - locationless or not)

But then he DID seem to notice the part about getting the coordinates to the cache ("Then YOU too can have the honour of obtaining the co-ordinates to my special cache!" )...so I'm not sure why he mentioned locationless.

Personally, I think it's a cool idea. I think more people have a chance at logging this one than some of the 5/5's that require rock climbing and scuba equipement. (If we're going to deny caches because they aren't practical for "everybody" to log, then the cache list would be a LOT smaller.)

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

[This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on May 25, 2002 at 04:32 PM.]

May 25, 2002

I have a friend in a wheelchair, theoretically he cant do anything over a 1 (on terrain) and he likes to go geocaching. Now should we exclude ALL caches over that difficulty rating because he is in a chair? Should we exclude certain cachers because age, race, color, religion? I think that would be arrogant and narrowminded. I didn't mean for this to sound negative in anyway but unless there are other reasons for this one to be non-approved, I wound vote to keep it.

"My gps say's it RIGHT HERE".

http://www.geogadgets.com

May 25, 2002

I agree with Zuck (my brain locks on to your nick and I hear it chanted over and over in my head in the wee hours after heavy drinking... don't ask me to spell it, please?).

Seems like some folks didn't read this through. In a state as small as Utah (hey, compared to Alaska, Texas and California, Utah is small), I don't see it as all too difficult to log a cache in each county. And I certainly don't see it as elitist to get some type of special recognition for it.

As for the comment made by the person who refused to approve it - I'm sorry, but if you judge what makes a suitable cache based on whether or not a tourist visiting the state would be able to accomplish it, then I'd say 50% of the caches should be archived!

I mean, think of it: Complaints abound because the 5/5 caches are "too difficult" for the average tourist family, so they shouldn't exist. That is just one example, I'm sure that all of you can think of a similar scenario that would make many of the caches in your area difficult for visitors, tourists or anyone.

The whole excuse seems like a big stretch of logic to me. Maybe because you chose just to "give stuff away" - THAT doesn't sound like what is described on the main page under "Guide to finding your first cache".

I vote that it should be approved, and right now!

----------

Lori aka: RedwoodRed

KF6VFI

"I don't get lost, I investigate alternative destinations."

GeoGadgets Team Website

Comics, Video Games and Movie Fansite

"Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda, Jedi Master from Star Wars - Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

2.7k · May 25, 2002

Does it not say "you are the Search Engine." So let us search without delving into the parameters that run close to lack of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

If this fallacy continues soon we will have to send some funds just to post a Cache. Without concrete rules how do you determine what an "ELITIST" is.

If you don't like the Cache just ignore it. I think this would be a good challenge to those that have the time and means to searching for it.

Hell make one that requires 1 cache per state, that would really freak out the "EMERALD CITY GOONS." Its too difficult.

The "Bushwhacker"

Exitus acta probat

>>--->

2.7k · May 25, 2002

Does it not say "you are the Search Engine." So let us search without delving into the parameters that run close to lack of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

If this fallacy continues soon we will have to send some funds just to post a Cache. Without concrete rules how do you determine what an "ELITIST" is.

If you don't like the Cache just ignore it. I think this would be a good challenge to those that have the time and means to searching for it.

Hell make one that requires 1 cache per state, that would really freak out the "EMERALD CITY GOONS." Its too difficult.

The "Bushwhacker"

Exitus acta probat

>>--->

7.2k · May 25, 2002

When I am wrong, I will at least admit it...

I did read through the description quickly, and thought this was another of the dreaded locationless caches. I personally dislike locationless caches where the GPS is a secondary thing. (See something out of the blue and stick your GPS in front of it and take a picture of it and log a cache -- yick.) With this one, I am on the fence. What would push me over the fence is the fact that there is a cache box, which I did not notice when I first looked at the page. I scanned it and just thought "yet another locationless, give me a break". It is an interesting idea, and one that if approved will be copied across the country I am sure.

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

7.2k · May 25, 2002

When I am wrong, I will at least admit it...

I did read through the description quickly, and thought this was another of the dreaded locationless caches. I personally dislike locationless caches where the GPS is a secondary thing. (See something out of the blue and stick your GPS in front of it and take a picture of it and log a cache -- yick.) With this one, I am on the fence. What would push me over the fence is the fact that there is a cache box, which I did not notice when I first looked at the page. I scanned it and just thought "yet another locationless, give me a break". It is an interesting idea, and one that if approved will be copied across the country I am sure.

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

3.9k · May 25, 2002

If this is considered elite....what about underwater caches or caches that require rock climbing gear?

There is no such thing as a cache being too elite..unless I invent it, and I strive to do that everytime I place one!

The idea sounds good to me, and maybe it will take an elite cache hunter to find it..so what!

El Diablo

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

3.9k · May 25, 2002

If this is considered elite....what about underwater caches or caches that require rock climbing gear?

There is no such thing as a cache being too elite..unless I invent it, and I strive to do that everytime I place one!

The idea sounds good to me, and maybe it will take an elite cache hunter to find it..so what!

El Diablo

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

May 25, 2002

Sounds like a good idea to me- we would have to hide a lot more caches in NC- 100 counties! Most of them don't have caches yet, we have them primarily in the population centers, but the cachers in the western part of the state are really working the Blue Ridge Parkway area hard. Go get 'em, guys!

1.3k · May 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by bunkerdave:

I contacted him personally, and he said that he assumed it was the same as the first one. After he realized it was not the same, he said he apologized and should have approved it.

From that point, he should have had the cache un-archived, without you needing to re-post it. I thought these guys were supposed to REVIEW caches, not ASSUME them.

quote:
Originally posted by bunkerdave:

I believe another admin has already archived this.

We have member only caches, but this gets a bit too elitist as only the most seasoned 'cachers would be able to participate. A visitor to the state or a newbie wouldn't have a chance of finding this cache. IMHO

geocaching.com admin

First of all, let me say that I support MOC. I certainly don't agree with the assertion that having to pay money to access a given cache is LESS elitest than tailoring a cache for "seasoned" cachers. Why don't we just do away with everything over about 3 stars? After all, according to the admin, we don't want to scare off the newbies! It's obvious that this admin would never have approved your Master Cache . I wonder how that one slipped through?

Greg

N 39° 54.705'

W 77° 33.137'

1.3k · May 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by bunkerdave:

I contacted him personally, and he said that he assumed it was the same as the first one. After he realized it was not the same, he said he apologized and should have approved it.

From that point, he should have had the cache un-archived, without you needing to re-post it. I thought these guys were supposed to REVIEW caches, not ASSUME them.

quote:
Originally posted by bunkerdave:

I believe another admin has already archived this.

We have member only caches, but this gets a bit too elitist as only the most seasoned 'cachers would be able to participate. A visitor to the state or a newbie wouldn't have a chance of finding this cache. IMHO

geocaching.com admin

First of all, let me say that I support MOC. I certainly don't agree with the assertion that having to pay money to access a given cache is LESS elitest than tailoring a cache for "seasoned" cachers. Why don't we just do away with everything over about 3 stars? After all, according to the admin, we don't want to scare off the newbies! It's obvious that this admin would never have approved your Master Cache . I wonder how that one slipped through?

Greg

N 39° 54.705'

W 77° 33.137'

May 25, 2002

Denying this cache makes no sense to me. Basically, you have created a multistage cache that requires the hunter to hit x-stages (where x= the number of counties) to get the co-ordinates of the final cache.

I can't understand the reasoning behind denying this. Its another example of 'them' making up the rules as they go, and never filling the players in on them.

I for one thinks its a great idea for a cache.

_________________________________

Member:

May 25, 2002

The majority would like to see it, so be it.

I thought the first locationless cache was cool too, but it lead to lamecationless caches.

Hopefully we won't see a flood of copycats here too. If we do I pity the folks in Texas - they have 254 counties there! Happy Memorial Day! ~erik~

May 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:
The majority would like to see it, so be it.

I thought the first locationless cache was cool too, but it lead to lamecationless caches.

Hopefully we won't see a flood of copycats here too. If we do I pity the folks in Texas - they have 254 counties there! Happy Memorial Day! ~erik~

The Texas copy cat is probably on its way as we speak!

I wished the poll had a choice for "It dosen't make any difference to me" I may one day find a cache in Utah, but I'll guarantee I'll never find one in every county just to get credit for another find.

I voted "No" even though Utah has a county which shares my last name. I just don't understand what is so exciting about visiting every county in a state. I've visited all 64 counties in PA at least twice and didn't expect to get a prize.

Smoochnme

"He who hesitates is lost"

[This message was edited by smoochnme on May 25, 2002 at 09:08 PM.]

1.1k · May 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:

OK, I'll post it.

The majority would like to see it, so be it.

Thanks! It's encouraging to see when you guys listen and respond to the consensus in the forums.

(And I can appreciate your comment about the "lamecationless" caches...I hope others don't jump on this band wagon, and spoil the ingenuity of bunkerdave's idea.)

1.1k · May 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by The GeoGadgets Team:
I agree with Zuck (my brain locks on to your nick and I hear it chanted over and over in my head in the wee hours after heavy drinking... don't ask me to spell it, please?).

Don't worry...I can hardly spell it myself! (Thank goodness for auto-complete.)

1.1k · May 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by The GeoGadgets Team:
I agree with Zuck (my brain locks on to your nick and I hear it chanted over and over in my head in the wee hours after heavy drinking... don't ask me to spell it, please?).

Don't worry...I can hardly spell it myself! (Thank goodness for auto-complete.)

24.7k · May 25, 2002

The way I see it. It's not a traditional cache like you list. You have to to a major mulit quest to get it just like you might on a multi part locationless cache.

The real problem isn't what you are doing, it's that it doesn't fit any clear cut catagory as it currently is.

1.3k · May 25, 2002

I'm on the fence with this one. It is traditional in the sense that there is only one cache to be found; but, the number of steps required to complete it hints at being a multi.

I suspect there will never be enough parameters on the site to cover the creativity of cache hiders. I'll leave this call to the cache owner. After all, if you read the description, you know what you're in for.

Greg

N 39° 54.705'

W 77° 33.137'

May 25, 2002

i just saw it posted

------------------------------------------------------------

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CacheAcrossAmerica

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?u=KD7MXI

http://www.cachunuts.com

May 26, 2002

Well, I see that my cache was indeed posted. I am not sure if the response to this poll was THE overwhelming reason, but I like to think that it was, and the process works. Thanks for all the thoughtful responses posted here, on both sides of the issue. I too hope this does not get too carried away, as Texas would be one heck of a place to try and complete. Oh well...time will tell. Stay tuned to see if anyone ever actually logs this one...could be awhile - or not. Might be my hardest one yet!

bunkerdave

May 26, 2002

we don't have one in every county in Kansas yet..but I'm working on it..

May 26, 2002

we don't have one in every county in Kansas yet..but I'm working on it..

May 26, 2002

I can see the following scenario....

A person finally qualifies for the elitist cache only to find some lame cache with no special qualities.

Booo Hisss

May 27, 2002

Post it!!!

We all hunt what caches we can, when we can.

To say that it can not be posted because not everyone can hunt for caches in all countys is like saying that no caches can be posted, because not everyone can hunt caches in all states. Just my two cents worth.

May 27, 2002

Post it!!!

We all hunt what caches we can, when we can.

To say that it can not be posted because not everyone can hunt for caches in all countys is like saying that no caches can be posted, because not everyone can hunt caches in all states. Just my two cents worth.

1.1k · May 27, 2002

Just wondering how long you are willing to have this cache out for people to log. It seems to me that you would have to have it out until the last person to start it has finished it, however long it takes.

4.5k · May 27, 2002

Im a newbie and im also late with my response, but in my opinon (not worth a whole lot), I would have to agree that this was an acceptable cache. If someone wants to tackle it, more power to them. There is a goal and eventually a traditional cache to be found.

Cant imagine trying something like this in my home state of Texas though,,, Lets see, there are about 250 counties,,,hhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm

May 27, 2002

I think that this cache is elitist, however, I'm not sure that elitist is a problem. You have the option to chase the cache or not...

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son!

May 27, 2002

I think that this cache is elitist, however, I'm not sure that elitist is a problem. You have the option to chase the cache or not...

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son!:eek:

May 27, 2002

Why not? It's no crazier than some of the other caches I've come across. Nobody is being forced to do it.

May 27, 2002

Why not? It's no crazier than some of the other caches I've come across. Nobody is being forced to do it.

May 27, 2002

If my quickie research is correct, Utah has 29 counties and 834 caches, or an average of 28.76 caches/county. I am in Kentucky where we have 120 counties and 129 caches, or an average of 1.075 caches/county.

With a 28-fold differential, I don't think we will be seeing a similar cache logged here in the near future.

As to being elitist, I don't see why. I don't think many of us have equal access to most caches.

Just an observation.

May 28, 2002

...but it got archived by geocaching.com because "finding x caches is not a cache"....

So, I'm against having this cache.

--

Robert Elsinga =8-)

geocaching (at) elsinga.org

May 28, 2002

...but it got archived by geocaching.com because "finding x caches is not a cache"....

So, I'm against having this cache.

--

Robert Elsinga =8-)

geocaching (at) elsinga.org

1.1k · May 28, 2002

So I'll close this thread...

Jeremy

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Should THIS cache be posted, or not?

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

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment