Jump to content

Moratorium on Locationless Caches


Jeremy
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

A virtual cache is like this, here are the waypoints to this great statue on top of this mountain. E-mail me with the date on the bottom of the statue to claim your find. The statue is not going anywhere.

 

A locationless is like this: If you happen to see a really cool weathervane (actual cache) then mark the waypoints and take a photo of it with your GPSr in the photo. Weathervanes are everywhere and the cache page will end up wth many different cool weathervanes, not one cool one that doesn't move.

 

Cache you later,

Planet

 

"You can say any foolish thing to a dog, and the dog will

give you a look that says, 'My God, you're right! I never would've thought of that!'" - Dave Barry

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

I don't care about numbers. I do this for fun. If you are going to drop them then do you have any suggestions where us locationless lovers can go?


 

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

Sorry to sound so vague, but we'll essentially be segregating them further in the future, much like we do with benchmarking. They really do fit in a category all their own.


 

It doesn't sound to me like he's going to "drop them"...

Link to comment

Virtual - just like a regular geocache, except there is no container. Usually you have to email the owner some info from the location to verify that you were there.

 

Locationless - more like a scavenger hunt. The owner provides a subject -- covered bridges, natural arches, clock towers. Finder submits the coordinates for an example of the subject and a picture of yourself by it, with your GPS.

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

Mein Vater war ein Wandersmann, und ich hab' auch im Blut

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

If you are going to drop them then do you have any suggestions where us locationless lovers can go?


Jeremy answered your question before you even asked:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:

...there are some merits to locationless caches, so they aren't going away. If anything I'm working on ways to enhance them.


quote:
Originally posted by Grandmaster Cache:

...a better name for the theme - maybe like "photocaching."


I oppose this name, since by definition, locationless aren't caches. Of course they're not really "locationless" either... rather they have no definite location.

 

I propose any new name should incorporate the geo portion of geocaching, if continuity is desired.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

OK, got it. Thanks. Haven't run across one of those yet but it does sound interesting. With this new info I'd say they definitely need to be in their own place.

 

The great question...which I have not been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is "What does a woman want?" --Freud

Link to comment

a seperate category would be fine with me since I don't care about totals. When I go out caching I bring along a couple of dozen locationless cache printouts with me. Always on the lookout for those things.

 

Funny how each of us likes different things. I enjoy virtuals at least as much as regular caches. I have no interest in benchmarks. I have stood on one with my digital camera and gps yet didn't log it.

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:

I oppose this name (photocaching -- ed.), since by definition, locationless aren't caches. Of course they're not really "locationless" either... rather they have no definite location.


Ah, but suppose the "cache" in this case is the online collection of photos? Maybe?

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

Mein Vater war ein Wandersmann, und ich hab' auch im Blut

Link to comment

People...

 

Jeremy is not saying that he is doing away with locationless caches. He has said (three times now) that the proposal is to not enter any new locationless caches until he has a system in place to handle them.

 

I see a chance for some great developments here that have been mentioned before.

  • A photo album per locationless cache - it shows all the photos that have been uploaded to the logs to that particular locationless cache, so you can see them all in one place (instead of opening up multiple logs to see the photos)
  • The main cache page listing all of the coordinates for the places that have already been logged for that particular locationless cache?
  • An interactive zoomable map that shows the coordinates for each log for a locationless cache
  • A "key item" field and categories for these caches ("hex signs on barns" categories "artwork" and "architecture") s that locationless caches can be better organized.
It would take a considerable amount of programming to put all of these things into effect, and if there's a glut of new locationless caches coming on to the system, the sysadmins could never get a handle on these possible enhancements.

 

I still don't like locationless caches, but I see this as an opportunity to enhance the locationless experience - not diminish it.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Captain_Morgan&Family:

quote:
Originally posted by Ttepee:

Capt n' Family ...but an improved system would benefit all types. Couldn't you hunt those that are out there already and plan some great ones for the reopening in the mean time?

 

Jeremy... you'd better hold tight to that April/May date, I can imagine how those with few caches in the vacinity would depend on these to play the game...puts the pressure on. I definitely say go for it though.


 

In fact i (or we) could, and now when i re-think i would vote for temporarily suspend...

 

And i agree also that "photocache" is a better name than locationless cache.

 

Yours,

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/70242_1300.gif


 

70242_1300.gif

Link to comment
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

Keep in mind it would be temporary and become available again for posting in April/May. /QUOTE]

 

I voted to for the TEMPORARY moritorium on new locationless caches, but do not think they should go away or be a seperate category. I think they should be a bit more stringent, as someone else noted, such as if there are only a limited number of opportunities to find the particular item. I do look to do some when I am traveling and it is a pleasant variation on the whole cache hunting concept, as are virtuals... there are some days I just don't feel like getting out in the woods and poking around, but I still might like to find a cache or two, so virtuals and locationless serve that purpose.....I say keep them, after the temporary hiatus, because in my opinion the variety of types of caches keeps 'caching interesting and opens it up to more people, and new people coming in are the lifeblood of the sport/hobby/addiction of geocaching

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BigHank:

I apologize for the multiple posts...don't know what happened, other than perhaps my computer burped.

 

Hank


Seems to be happening alot lately, to alot of people.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

Another rule I propose for each of the "new" locationless, or photocache, or whatever we wind up calling them, is that only so many individuals will have the opportunity to log a find on each individual "cache". In other words, say set a limit of 100, or whatever arbitrary number you wish, and after that many have been logged, that's it. it's archived. There were a couple of them that were set up that way by those that conceived of the locationless voluntarily and I thought it was a nice touch, and I got in just under the wire on one of them and it actually gave it an air of urgency...lol.

 

There is a place for locationless, but not just ANY locationless. There should be stringent rules, just as there are for conventional caches (even though we all know of many, many, many tupperware boxes out there placed without permission of the parks systems in many city's especially). Not following the rules will get us thrown out of those places where we hide conventional caches far sooner than any virtual or locationless ever would.

 

It would be simply terrible for our sport if all we wound up with was locationless and virtuals due to those who do not want to follow the rules as set up for their favorite type of cache, while whining about those that don't follow the rules while making a cache of a type they don't like.

 

By the way, I did vote for the temporary suspension if you couldn't tell from my previous post.

 

Take care all.

 

icon_biggrin.gificon_wink.gificon_razz.gif

 

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Breaktrack:

Another rule I propose for each of the "new" locationless, or photocache, or whatever we wind up calling them, is that only so many individuals will have the opportunity to log a find on each individual "cache". In other words, say set a limit of 100, or whatever arbitrary number you wish, and after that many have been logged, that's it. it's archived. ...


 

I'm not sure that this is necessary. By their nature, a good locationless cache will have a limited number of items. The trick is weeding out the items that you can find by looking in nearly any direction.

 

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

Link to comment

I can understand the part about locationless caches. I have done a couple myself.

 

Then I see others are mentioning virtuals but I think that they are seperate again as you still have to find the spot and log it.

 

Right now we are in discussions with the Government about caching in the Provincial Parks in Ontario. There stand right now is only have virtuals in the parks. If they are cut off then we would have no caches to look for in parks, from reading the other forums I think this is happening in alot of the parks.

 

I say suspend the locationless caches but still have the virtuals.

 

icon_rolleyes.gif

 

gm100guy

http://members.rogers.com/gm100guy/cachepage.htm

Link to comment

Virtuals and Locationless caches are completely different. No one has said anything about a moratorium on virtual caches, and they are not being separated out.

 

Traditional caches: here's the coordinates, find the box.

Multi-caches: Here's the coordinates, and here's the coordinates, and here's the coordinates. If you don't mess up the sequence, find the box.

Letterbox Hybrid: Here's the coordinates, find the box - and here's some clues, too.

Offset Cache: Here's the coordinates, go there, then go so far in a direction. There should be a box there.

Virtual caches: here's the coordinates, tell me what's there.

Moving caches: here's the coordinates, find the box, move it somewhere else and tell me the new coordinates.

Webcam Caches: Here's the coordinates. Smile.

Event caches: Here's the coordinates. Stop by and meet us.

Locationless caches: find an item matching my criteria and tell me the coordinates.

Benchmarks: Here's the coordinates to a disk or stationary object and the exact directions in how to get there. Tell me if it's still there.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Link to comment

I have voted for a moratorium on locationless caches, and I would do the same for virtual caches too.

Give them thier own space if folk really want them, they are not geocaching to me. Nothing is more dissapointing to me when searching on the website for caches, but to open up the page and see it is yet another virtual. My own town has enough memorials, statues, unusually placed objects and signs and I dont need someone else with a gps to to tell me where to find them.

Link to comment

My idea of a good cache is something that allows me to get in some good hiking, see new places and learn something new. Locationless caches, although I have not done a lot, have been a very intriguing part of adventures. I've had a lot of fun with them.

 

So OK, temporarily suspend. But bring them back in a better, more organized format.

 

If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there - George Harrison

Link to comment

Being new to the sport I just found out what these are, by going through the list of 321 locationless this weekend. My observations:

1. Living in a large urban area, I can do dozens of these quickly and easily.

2. Living here my whole life, I can find these without a GPS.

3. Once found, there is no incentive for someone else to go there. (Also deprives new cachers a find)

4. I saw 10 listed that can be "found" within 1 to 4 miles of my house. 5 more have already been "found". And I only looked at a few dozen listings.

5. It didn't seem right to add these to my "regular" count of finds.

6. As I pondered locationless (before this thread), I came to the opinion that this should be a seperate category.

 

My question: When/if new category is formed, will old finds be moved over in ones personal find list?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

Jeremy you've been negative about locationless since they've started. I enjoy the heck out of them. You are asking for a 2/3 vote here. So what if it's 100% against locationless? Few users actually post here. You won't get 1% of the total cachers voting.

 

You say that the main reason is the backlog of caches awaiting approval. Yet you have lots of people volunteering to help with that.

 

I can't stand multi stage caches. Hate them. So I'm fine with ignoring them. The locationless caches give me something else to do with my gps. It keeps me awake. I find them interesting.

 

I don't care about numbers. I do this for fun. If you are going to drop them then do you have any suggestions where us locationless lovers can go?

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!


 

To quote Jeremy from an above post:

quote:
I will admit there are some merits to locationless caches, so they aren't going away. If anything I'm working on ways to enhance them.


 

How is that being negative ??????? Do you have unspoken issues about this? Try reading the post before posting to it!

 

BTW: I voted to Temporarily suspend new locationless caches.

 

Lapaglia icon_cool.gif

Muga Muchu (forget yourself, focus)

Link to comment

I'm a newbie, so my opinion is worthless, but here it is anyway.

 

If you need to suspend new locationless caches till they can better be handled, fine, but don't start breaking things out into their own categories and names or it will never end.

 

I agree that benchmarks are a whole different animal and should be handled as such, but I think if we start separating locationless from other cache types, then pretty soon, someone will be wanting to separate virtuals, and multis, and water caches and land caches and caches that are in trees. Why? Who cares? It just adds unneeded complexity. If you don't want to do a locationless, don't. If you don't want to do a virtual, don't. But I think separating them into different categories other that the categories that are there now is just a waste of time. And the 'i wouldn't want to soil my count by logging a locationless'? Please, get a life.

 

Rainking

Link to comment

A diffrent catagory. And the same rule goes for those EVENT caches. An event is not a cache anymore than a locationless is. And the people that hate locationless still log an event and all you have to do is show up.

Are we using the same yardstick on all caches or what?

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

Link to comment

quote:
How is that being negative ??????? Do you have unspoken issues about this? Try reading the post before posting to it!

 

I could say the same about you. After all did I say his post was negative about locationless caches? No I didn't. Jeremy has been negative about them from the start. Then again you haven't read the e-mail I received from Jeremy several months ago about locationless caches.

 

My issues about anything are always spoken and never unspoken. Makes it easier to know where I'm coming from.

 

By the way I find it easy to dislike what a person like Jeremy may say or do without disliking him. I don't confuse such issues and don't have any problems with Jeremy. I enjoy locationless and plan to continue to participate with them regardless of where that might lead me.

 

Again he did mention that the approvers were overloaded. I also mentioned that several new people have offered to help with approvals. He doesn't want additional help. Hmmmm.

 

So my thought is why suspend approvals? I guess I missed that point. What's next? What do we need to suspend next?

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

So my thought is why suspend approvals? I guess I missed that point. What's next? What do we need to suspend next?


 

How about we suspend all cache approvals in the Klamath basin? That ought to relieve some of the workload icon_biggrin.gif

 

Of course, you'll reply back by saying that cache placement has slown down in the area. I don't really care. I still get to snicker at my little joke.

Link to comment

My first reaction was to vote to keep since I live in an area of low regular cache density, the winters are not the greatest for regular caching, photography and history are two other interests and some , but my no means all locationaless, are interesting. Then I read the posts and changed my mind - they do deserve a separate category and photocaching seems like a good idea.

Link to comment

There was a time when that Klamath basin had it's own moderator. It was a busy place. Hopefully it will be again. The birth place of black plastic bags. The Rogue Valley has picked up but I venture a guess that Eugene and Portland still take pleny of time. Washington seems to be booming too.

 

Personally I don't really think the problem is workload.

 

Maybe a time will come when caches have an expiration date stamped on them? Well that would free up some disk space but not moderator time.

 

Anyway this thread is getting too long already. I'm done adding to it. What will happen is going to happen. Sort of like Iraq.

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

 

So my thought is why suspend approvals? I guess I missed that point. What's next? What do we need to suspend next?

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!


 

Here's what I suggest you do. Go into your email archives and get the one that I sent to you. Post it here and I can respond based on the merits of the email. Please ensure that you have the entire message from start to finish.

 

If you don't provide the email, get off your soapbox and come back to earth. I also tend to say what I mean, and in the past messages in this topic I state that there is merit to locationless caches and that we need some breathing room to get them to work right. Ask any approver, though I'm sure you'll assume that I have a gun to their heads so they tow the line.

 

I don't get you. You have vague accusations that I "have been against locationless caches from the start." Yet there is a locationless cache type on the site. What I do not like is lame locationless caches. What I dislike more is vague accusations.

 

Regardless, there's no point in debating you, so I guess I admit the gig is up. This is a secret plot between me and Colonel Sanders to defeat locationless caches and their ilk. Fortunately aluminum foil will defeat my mind reading powers.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Link to comment

I have always been against Locationless Caches for the simple reason that they are not caches. Look in Websters and read the difinition of a Cache.

 

On the other hand...I recently attented a corporate management meeting and in the middle of it to break the tension they teamed us up for a good old scanvenger hunt. A lot of the items we needed to find required that we take a picture of it. It was one of the most fun things I have ever done!!

 

So the bottom line is...I believe there is a place for them, because they can be fun and exciting. Isn't that what we Geocache for, to have fun?

 

El Diablo

 

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

Link to comment

Fine Jeremy. I'll let it go. By the way I have deleted the email you sent me as I honestly didn't think I would need to prove a dadgum thing. It was several months ago.

 

I am so sorry that I have disagreed with the lord of geocaching. That I actually accused him of disliking locationless. May I respectfully bow down and ask you what percentage of caches you are overwhelmed with are actually locationless? I'll venture a guess that it's very small.

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

Link to comment

I have never done a locationless cache and do not plan to any time soon. I have however done the benchmark hunting and will do any that are reasonably close to a cache. If the locationless caches are in there own category that would be fine with me. I vote to suspend them until they have there own category.

Link to comment

I didn't vote, because I don't really care if there's a TEMPORARY moratorium on NEW locationless caches.

 

I've done quite a few (30-something) locationless caches, as well as creating a few. However, most of those were months ago. I've pretty much lost interest in them. I'll still do one from time to time, but I really don't go out of my way to look for them.

 

If it will help to segregate them, great. I'd probably actually do more of them if they were in a different database. I would prefer to see the currently listed LCs grandfathered in the existing database, however.

 

ntga_button.gifweb-lingbutton.gif

Link to comment

i have expressed an opinoin of locationless caches before. i vote no but will not waste my breath on arguing this point again and again. the powers that be will do what they want anyway. it comes down to the admins with the loudest voice getting what they want and the rest of us can eat cake

 

SR and dboggny.

9372_2600.jpg

Link to comment

I think in general I agree with most of the group. I do prefer actually finding something at a particular location. But I have had fun finding the locationless ones as well. I voted to suspend them for now, but only in anticipation that they would be reinstated later and possibly (probably) treaaated separately similar to benchmarks. If this is not the case, then I would like to see them continue and would change my vote. There are some of us that are not always able to do a lot of walking (I am one the of the fortunate who can icon_smile.gif ) and doing a locationless has been a great fix while still doing something similar.

 

I never get lost!

I simply investigate alternate destinations!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Rainking:

I agree that benchmarks are a whole different animal and should be handled as such, but I think if we start separating locationless from other cache types, then pretty soon, someone will be wanting to separate virtuals, and multis, and water caches and land caches and caches that are in trees. Why? Who cares? It just adds unneeded complexity.


Benchmarks are closer to geocaches than locationless are -- here are the coordinates, go find the thing -- but they are separated. Locationless is a completely different game. Right now we are shoehorning it into the geocaching format, anbd it is not a perfect fit. The information you need to hunt a locationless is completely different from what you need to hunt a cache or benchmark. Look at the cache creation form and note how many of those fields are useless in locationless -- coordinates, hint, container type. Why use this for locationless? There might be some confusion up front with it in a new area, but in the long run, I'm certain everyone is going to be happier, whether you love or hate locationless.

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

Mein Vater war ein Wandersmann, und ich hab' auch im Blut

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SR & dboggny:

the powers that be will do what they want anyway. it comes down to the admins with the loudest voice getting what they want and the rest of us can eat cake


 

Yes, let's conveniently ignore that the votes are currently running 7 to 1 in favor of making the separation.

 

This has already been said multiple times, but since people don't seem to be getting it, I'll mention it again: locationless caches would not be done away with; rather, they would only be given their own section similar to benchmarks. Why? Because they are inherently different in nature from all other cache types.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

May I respectfully bow down and ask you what percentage of caches you are overwhelmed with are actually locationless?


 

Domo origato, Mr. Roboto.

 

You are blessed, my son.

 

1... 2... 3 locationless caches! Which is why I've expended all this energy in this topic. To convince people to vote on a moratorium on approving 1 locationless cache a week makes perfect sense to me. I'm just a moron that way.

 

(Anticipated response: You said it, not me)

 

If you stopped to listen to that smaller voice in your head, you would realize it was the voice of reason.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Link to comment

Come April/May you will see the complete irony in this discussion. For those interested in keeping history on the site, bookmark this topic and read it again when I make the announcements in April or May (hopefully earlier than later).

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Link to comment

I enjoy many locationless caches. Often, they are more challenging than an easy cache-and-dash cache. They often take research and some physical searching. Yes, there are some lame locationless caches. If you don't like them, don't do them. I enjoy a good search--for either a traditional, a virtual, or a locationless. I don't really think they should be a problem. I can understand the administration problems, but I've come up with a couple of good ones that were rejected by the admin folk. That's life. I don't let it wreck my day.

 

Let's keep locationless as they are. I wouldn't want to segregate them like we do benchmarks.

Link to comment

I am voting for a TEMPORARY moratorium until any reasonable alternative can be arranged. I have no problem checking out an occasional place I'd never have stopped at b4. Now I have a reason to stop and check it out and some marginal incentive to do so.

 

How about a PERMANENT ban on drive up caches. What a waste. I've been to a couple recently I probably could have handled out the car window. These I don't get at all - no point to it except to build your cache count. Whoopee!!

 

And while I'm here - yet again off-topic - TravelBug Hotels/exchanges ????? PLEASE!!! - clearly some with too much time on their hands. Can't the buggers just move about on their own and sort of randomly. Even if it has a goal - it still can get there eventually - who's to say it went in the WRONG direction? - Is there such a thing? Isn't that some of the fun of it?

 

Enuff of my rambling.

Link to comment

i voted to suspend for the reason jeremy gave- to prepare the system to better handle locationless caches. i really don't understand the venom being expended in this discussion. one of the things i like about this game is that there is a minimum of structure. this gives a lot of freedom in the placing and hunting of caches. i don't personally hunt locationless caches, but, so what! i certainly don't begrudge anyone who does. as a friend of mine says "it's a good thing not everyone likes what i like.". the game continues to evolve and i hope these growing pains can be resolved through discussion rather than vitriol. let's all play nice. -harry

Link to comment

Colonel Sanders, voices in your head, Dorothy and Toto, aluminum foil?? Maybe 'overwhelmed' is not stong enough a term. Predictably, this thread has deteriorated into the usual off-topic debate.

 

To form an opinion on the question at hand, it would be helpful to have more information, though. Without the relevant information, I can't see how the poll is of much help. I don't think that it is unreasonable to have some idea of how big the problem is, considering that only four have been approved this month. I am still left wondering how a temporary moratorium will have any permanent effect on the problem stated. That would be useful information in voting, as well.

 

My vote is to include the relevent information so that the poll is worthwhile (instead of awaiting the 'complete irony'), or make an administrative decision.

 

GoBucks

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...