Jump to content

Moratorium on Locationless Caches


Jeremy
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by gobucks:

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.


 

Ok. I'll bite. What relevant information do you need? I'm pleading the case of the approvers who ask for a break for 2-3 lousy months before reinstating caches. You want some charts and a spreadsheet? We're not shutting them down for crying out loud.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Link to comment

What are we on in this fight...round 8 or 9? So far the judges are giving it to Jeremy since Lazyboy is unable to come up with an intelligent reply....but wait! He was just handed a Thesaurus. Could this spell doom for Jeremy??

 

Stay tuned for the next round.

 

Come on guys...lightin up a little. icon_smile.gif

 

El Diablo

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by gobucks:

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.

 

GoBucks


 

The requested information that I referred to in my previous post. Is there any ballpark number between 'a spreadsheet' and '1,2,3...locationless'? Just trying to bring the thread back to the topic and to a more constructive tone. I'll shut up and quietly move to the 'this issue has already been decided' side of the room.

 

GoBucks

Link to comment

I have done a few, but they are the OPPOSITE of geocaching. Instead of getting the coordinates to find a place, you find the place and then let everyone else know where it is, but then there is no reason for them to go there. I say at least its own category if not site.

 

smiles_63.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by gobucks:

quote:
Originally posted by gobucks:

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.

 

GoBucks


 

The requested information that I referred to is in my previous post. Is there any ballpark number between 'a spreadsheet' and '1,2,3...locationless'? Just trying to bring the thread back to the topic and to a more constructive tone. I'll shut up and quietly move to the 'this issue has already been decided' side of the room.

 

GoBucks


Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

We're not shutting them down for crying out loud.

 


 

Bummer

 

I'm on record as not being a fan of locationless caches, but I am also a hypocrite because I did log this one recently, because I felt it was well done. I am sure that when the locationless caches are back up and running, Jeremy will have integrated them into the website in such a way that it will make everyone happy. Separate find counts, an easy search method for the type of cache, and other features similar to the benchmark page, and more detailed criteria for submitalls will only make geocaching.com a bettter place for all of us.

 

19973_600.gif The adventures of Navdog, Justdog, and Otterpup

Link to comment

I enjoy finding these, on my own terms, and I think I'd enjoy them a whole lot more if they were a separate game. I don't play the benchmarking game (yet) and am glad that it's separate. I WOULD play the locationless game, with more enthusiasm, in its own category. I like photography and I like scavenger hunts.

 

I voted FOR the moratorium, in the hopes that it will improve the gameS for all of us.

 

I guess the current poll results mean that I'd better hurry up and submit my "find the hamsters" locationless before Friday?

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

If there's no accounting for stupidity, then why do I need to file a tax return?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

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


Because I have a free "all you can eat steak" dinner bet with dboggny riding on this!

 

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

Link to comment

I think most people can vote now on this without additional facts on the matter. If you don't want to cut the approvers a little slack so I can improve the locationless cache section, vote no. If you would like to give them a much needed break and let me go back to coding, vote yes.

 

At this point you're just going to have to trust me and the merit of my request. If not I doubt anything would sway you anyway.

 

I'm not sure what the exact nature of the bet is, but I'll get the winner some garlic mashed potatoes.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

Because I have a free "all you can eat steak" dinner bet with dboggny riding on this!

 

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


 

Yes, and i will enjoy this nice steak dinner on you, as i expound on how i figure these things out so easily.

 

SR and dboggny.

9372_2600.jpg

Link to comment

Another vote to temporarily suspend new Locationless Caches. I have to say that i did the Yellow Jeep cache a while back, only because mine was parked in the garage and made it an easy quickie icon_razz.gif.

 

I too think that Locationless should have their own category and if this was to come to pass, it wouldnt bother me a bit to drop this one from my list of "real" finds!

 

[This message was edited by Mudfrog on February 10, 2003 at 08:24 PM.]

Link to comment

I think it very cool that Jeremy took the time to put this out to all the cachers and ask for the verdict of the caching community, especially when he knew he was gonna get flamed for it. I think the site is run great and appriciate all the work Jeremy and his merry Elves put into keeping the place running as smoothly as it does. So here is a big Venti Thank You.

Link to comment

Interesting discussion going on here for sure. Bringing the topic home a bit would be a good thing. Here goes...

 

I have been approving caches for some time and have pretty much enjoyed it. I like seeing the creativity that some people come up with. Geocaching to me is going to a place marked with coordinates -- be it a virtual, multi, webcam, event or traditional cache location. I still have to “find it” using a coordinate on the globe. That to me is Geocaching. I have done a few locationless points. They have all involved a coordinate except two. One was the covered bridge cache. I did that one because you could plot the coordinates in www.topozone.com and sure enough, there is the covered bridge on the map. The other one was the 54 Colorado Fourteeners, mainly because I was first to find. My Geonick should explain that one pretty well.

 

I have take a lot of the locationless submissions that have come in and even seek them out as they are submitted. It is because I have an open opinion about them. I have approved many locationless submissions. I have also archived a lot more than I have approved. Many people just do not read the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines. I send a URL to this page in my archive notes, and most of the people who argue for their locationless never read it when they write back. I have to quote it and they will back down most of the time. Well... most of the time.

 

I took about a week off some time ago. Every now and then some cacher cusses me out and chews me out and calls me "high and mighty" and all that. I can take it most of the time because for each one of those there are 25 more people who just say OK and thank us for the volunteer time we give. Yeah, well, there was this one guy. He cussed me out and called me names and I just could not get the point across that his cache broke the rules on that page. I have to be nice because even though I am a volunteer I know I still represent the site. The things he said really bothered me and after several exchanges I finally just wrote back a "whatever" note. The next day I got a note from his wife. She apologized and said she was sorry. I told her that it was fine but that I would not get over it. He is obviously an angry and troubled person. She thanked me for what I do and said there would be no further emails from her husband.

 

I took a little time off and almost quit. Why do I need to get cussed out like that??? After a few found caches I reviewed more caches and yes, I archived a few. I got a few more of the nice emails and replied pleasantly back to them. I have not had another incident as bad as that one. I just point out the guidelines and state that I follow them and that is that. Sorry, case closed, and move on.

 

The locationless submitters seem to be the most defensive. Many argue and argue and argue. So I have to quote the rules over and over and over. All this takes time from approving caches submitted by cachers that read and follow the requirements -- most of you reading this forum right now. I finally tell them to take their case to the forums. As you can tell there is not much conviction in front of the general caching public because only a very few cacher have brought their caches to the forums. If these people that argue so hard for their caches took as much time in creating other types of caches that follow these simple guidelines, then the whole sport/hobby/adventure would benefit tremendously. Most of the good locationless ideas are pretty much gone. There are a few that still come in, and YES they have been approved. But a break from refusing submissions for school buses and manhole covers and fire hydrants (etc.) would be nice. The locationless idea will not go away, but needs restructuring. Offering up the existing locationless ones to another site... well, all the cachers have to do is list them on another site. That sounds pretty easy to me, but this is the biggest, best and most organized site so people gravitate to it. Some constantly complain, but they continue to stay. You know who you are, you constantly complain, yet you stay.

 

Just a reminder from the FAQ Page:

"The word Geocaching broken out is GEO for geography, and CACHING for the process of hiding a cache."

 

I am sure I will be quoted. Have at it. I do my best and love what I do. The payment I get is the nice notes from fellow cachers. They do make it all worth it, believe it or not. My sincere thanks to all of you out there that have given me compliments in emails and in ClayJar’s Chat Room. Once again, you all make this worthwhile.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by GeoChamp:

This game is becoming far to regulated. Jeremy it's time to take a step back from the governing force to be.


Maybe after you find a few hundred caches you'll get an appreciation for regulations. Or maybe not. I for one think that Jeremy and crew are doing a great job.

 

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

Link to comment

Yes. Let's lower the level of cache approvals. Here's a quote from a recent virtual cache that was not approved.

 

quote:
The goal of this cache is to record the rate of decay of this particular dead juvenile Blue-footed booby. The bird is located right in the middle of the trail. As you get close, keep the photograph in mind, and use the rocks in the picture for reference. This was the only dead booby directly in the middle of the trail. There will be other dead birds in the future, but I would like to track the decay of this particular one.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Link to comment

Some locationless caches have been recently approved although they should have not. The main problem, i guess, is that some approver or approvers don't know how common some objects are outside US. Perhaps the best example is this:

"I Can't Drive....21?" URL: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=44163

In this cache you have to find a speed limit that do not end in '5' or '0', or which are higher than 70 (local units/hour).

In every country that use kilometers / hour, instead of miles / hour, there is A LOT of speed limits like 80, 100 or 120 km/h. I guess there is hundreds of thousands, or millions of those speed limits in this planet.

So this was only one example, but there is more if you need more examples...

 

What i want say with this, is that locationless cache approvers should establish some kind of steering board where they discuss about new locationless caches before they accept them. And because of this problem, there should be locationless cache approvers from all parts of the world, perhaps from every country where is geocachers that do locationless caching. I'm volunteer for Finland, if needed...

 

Yours,

 

70242_1300.gif

Link to comment

This is especially for those of you who don't like locationless caches:

 

Come on, try someday also this part of this hobby. You may be suprised what you find. I've done a lot of locationless caches as i have not had anything else to find. And during searching them, i've also learned something. Six months ago i have'nt even heard about such things like "disc golf", "googie building", "vortac", "meromictic lake" or "higgs boson". I have also found some interesting things from my county, that i did not know to exist there, like caboose, steam locomotive, skate park and also that meromictic lake.

 

So, don't judge anything, before you try it by yourself !

 

Sincerely,

 

70242_1300.gif

Link to comment

My personal opinion about locationless caches are they are further from a traditional cache than either a benchmark or a pure letterbox. Benchmarks have their own section and pure letterboxes aren't even allowed on the site. (I know because I submitted one.)

 

I do like locationless caches as it gives us something to do enroute, but I don't like that they are included in with your regular count. I feel very strongly they should be seperate.

 

On virtuals: My opinion of virtuals are they aren't true caches either. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed many a virt, but at the same time a little disappointed there wasn't a physical to find--even if it was a log-only cache. I understand the reason for them to be there, but far, far too many virtuals could have been a physical. I've actually found virtuals within 100' of a physical cache. I feel if someone successfully submits a virtual, but someone else submits a physical and can show it's well hidden, the physical should take precedence. If not that, some other means of being able to get a physical cache in that location--maybe by disregarding the .1 mile rule for distances between virtuals and physical caches. I dunno, something.

 

Benchmarks: sure hope the new site will allow benchmarks in the queries!

 

Many thanks go out to Jeremy and everyone that makes this site run as smoothly as it does.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

Jeremy you've been negative.

 

I do this for fun.

 

So take it away & stop talking about it, also take the map page away to, it doesn't work anyway.

 

I won't be a charter member next time.

 

I'll just play for fun and not read the forums and let you'll do what you want anywhy.

Link to comment

quote:
Jeremy you've been negative.

Improving how the site handles locationless caches is negative? I think it's very big of him to improve something he's apparently so negative about.

 

quote:
So take it away & stop talking about it,

I think you're the only one in this thread who has requested they be taken away.

 

quote:
I won't be a charter member next time.

Do something nice for someone, and they take away their support. Nice.

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

I took a little time off and almost quit. Why do I need to get cussed out like that???

 

I am sure I will be quoted. Have at it. I do my best and love what I do. The payment I get is the nice notes from fellow cachers. They do make it all worth it, believe it or not. My sincere thanks to all of you out there that have given me compliments in emails and in ClayJar’s Chat Room. Once again, you all make this worthwhile.


 

Mtn-Man, you are to be commended for your thoughtful response to this issue. Whether you like locationsless caches, or hate them, reasonableness seems to be the missing ingredient in this discussion. Your post injects much needed reasonableness.

 

I am certainly not tasked with approving or disapproving new caches, but if I was I would hope I would take my responsibilities with as much dedication and positive attitude as you have demonstrated.

 

Do not quit, do not let petty people get to you. Remember there are many of us out here who do this for the FUN of it, not to cause controversy and commotion. I am a fan of this site, Jeremy, and those who take the time and trouble to promote our little activity here. Without individuals willing to take the time and trouble to administer this activity it would be a far cry from what it is today.

 

People, let's not make Geocaching into something it's not, more trouble than it's worth. This is a fantastic activity that can be used as needed, fits many different people and interests, and is flexible enough to attract people from every walk of life. Jeremy, hang in there and just know you are appreciated by the majority of us out here.

 

Just my very humble opinion. icon_biggrin.gif

 

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

Link to comment

you know what. who really cares. its your site. do what you want. as a geocacher with my own web page, i can really play the game how i feel like anyway and not conform to rules set by geocaching.com or N*a*v*icache or any other group out there. i can keep track of my own find counts, i can post my own logs and i can create and post my own caches on my own web page too. i can drop a card in other caches i visit advertising my caches. so, in reality, this really isnt that big a deal. thanks to geocities for the free web space. it appears to me that some people are just trying to make this game more and more competative and less and less fun.

it seems to me that this is as good an idea as mobi pocket reader was.

 

SR and dboggny.

9372_2600.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Kaniksu:

 

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.


 

we should give scuba caches their own section too, as they are inherently different as well. underwater is not really what a traditional cache is, unless i am hiding my beer in a cold lake or something. also, are logging events fair? seperate section for those too smart guy.

you see, this thing comes down to those hardcore cachers who complain the most. these are the same guys who think virts are lame, however approve a 1/1 near a parking lot that takes 2 seconds to get.

next thing to go will be locationless caches. then a point system based on cache difficulty rating and cache popularity rating.

you know, it takes two motivations to do something. these are the reasons this is being done, we have just heard the excuse.

 

SR and dboggny.

9372_2600.jpg

 

[This message was edited by SR & dboggny on February 11, 2003 at 08:08 AM.]

 

[This message was edited by SR & dboggny on February 11, 2003 at 08:10 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SR & dboggny:

....i can really play the game how i feel like anyway and not conform to rules set by geocaching.com or N*a*v*icache or any other group out there. http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/9372_2600.jpg


 

Geocaching is not solitaire. Community is at the core of Geocaching. Without a general framework, with rules and guidelines acceptable to the majority, Geocaching cannot exist. You can try to play it your way -- but you will not be playing anything that even remotely resembles Geocaching.

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

geol4.JPG

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SR & dboggny:

next thing to go will be locationless caches.


I'd like mine well done, Danny. With Jeremy's garlic mashed potatoes on the side.

Anyone else want to make a side bet for the beer? Locationless caches leave the site forever, I buy. They come back in a few months, better then ever, you buy.

 

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

Link to comment

I would agree that suspending for the time being is fine -- given the workload of those who approve. I would also agree that splitting them off into their own area is a good idea. I LOVE the idea of calling them "PhotoCaches" -- that's really good!

I'll grant you that they are 'different' from what the purists call REAL geocaches; but they still require the use of a GPS and they require that you get your butt off the couch and out SOMEwhere. To me, that is the essence of geocaching, if not the definition.

So, yes -- for now go ahead and suspend them. Move them aside to their own place if need be. But do not let them go away. I like the idea and want to continue to have them as an option.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

quote:
Originally posted by SR & dboggny:

....i can really play the game how i feel like anyway and not conform to rules set by geocaching.com or N*a*v*icache or any other group out there. http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/9372_2600.jpg


 

Geocaching is not solitaire. Community is at the core of Geocaching. Without a general framework, with rules and guidelines acceptable to the majority, Geocaching cannot exist. You can try to play it your way -- but you will not be playing anything that even remotely resembles Geocaching.

 

_I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me._

http://www.cslaw.ca/geol4.JPG


sir, pay attention. this is a simple game. i find a cache, i log a cache. that remotely resembles geocaching to me. further, i would not call the small amount of people that freqent the forums some kind of majority as you label them.

 

SR and dboggny.

9372_2600.jpg

 

[This message was edited by SR & dboggny on February 11, 2003 at 09:36 AM.]

Link to comment

I completely agree with OuttaHand.

 

I really don't understand what all the turmoil is about this thread. I haven't read the whole thread because m,ost of it seemed off topic and mean spirited, but my understanding of it is that locationless caches will not be approved for a few months. The current ones can still be logged. In a few months, approval will continue, but this cache type will likely be split to its own area of the site, like benchmarks are split out. I think this is a good idea as it will stop threads from being hijacked every time locationless caches are mentioned.

 

Why does this concept cause such an uproar? There is no reason to believe that they won't be brought back. If one didn't believe Jeremy when he stated that this is only temporary, why bother to reply?

 

The only thing I can think of is that some are concerned that there find counts will suffer once locationless are separated out. Get over it.

 

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

Link to comment

quote:

 

The only thing I can think of is that some are concerned that there find counts will suffer once locationless are separated out. Get over it.

 

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.


 

what do you think precipitated this whole thing to begin with. maybe those who dont like others having a find count based on locationless caches should get over it. this is always brougth up when locationless and virts are discussed. how they "cheapen my real finds".

 

SR and dboggny.

9372_2600.jpg

Link to comment

SR&D-

 

That's exactly my point. I support having locationless caches separtated to thies own area because it eliminates that argument. Everyone can just go back to finding the caches that they like without caring about the perception of others.

 

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by ZingerHead:

Virtuals pose no problem of "geocaching ethics" for me: you have to actually GO somewhere, the cache is always in the same spot, and you need a GPS to find your way. The fact that I don't have to root around looking for a physically hidden object once I'm there doesn't detract from the experience IMHO. The opportunity to check out a new spot or learn something is on par, entertainment-wise, with finally locating that elusive 35mm film can or tupperware. Therein lies my problem with locationless caches - all too often you don't need a GPS and you don't HAVE to travel somewhere. On average, I would guess that the effort to rack up 100 locationless finds is significantly less than is required for 100 traditional/virtual finds, yet they are all considered equal as "finds". So spin them off - great idea.


 

Ditto. I couldn't have said it better myself (thanks ZingerHead). I've done both virtuals and locationless caches - THEY ARE NOT the same. Spin off the locationless caches from the regulars and virtuals (historically too - no need to grandfather them out) BUT don't get rid of them entirely. They're still fun caches to do, they're just different. If need be, you could have 2 running counts of caches found - one WITHOUT locationless caches included in the total and one WITH locationless caches included in the total.

 

Ciao,

Tripper

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SR & dboggny:

we should give scuba caches their own section too, as they are inherently different as well. underwater is not really what a traditional cache is, unless i am hiding my beer in a cold lake or something. also, are logging events fair? seperate section for those too smart guy.


Once again, caches, events, micros, scuba, everything EXCEPT locationless boil down to "go to these coordinates and find {cache, party, historical plaque,...}" Everything except locationless. These makes sense to group together. The form for placing them fits them all. Locationless would be a lot more efficient with a separate section.

 

I can't believe people who love locationless aren't dying for this to be in place just for the ability to search on subject! Anyone want to Markwell the many threads where this was requested? I've only done a couple locationless, don't care much for them in the current setup, but I'm excited to see what's coming.

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

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

Link to comment

At first I misunderstood what was going on here and I voted no, but after reading all the logs I do believe I was wrong. I agree with mtn-man after thinking about it . The only reason I started hunting locationless caches because others in the top ten were , and YES I like numbers ( that does not seem the thing to say, but I do )and have found 130 of them. With that said I would like for it be as it was before locationless and benchmark hunting came along that’s what made me love this sport. Yes I am a speed cacher , is that wrong whos knows but I really enjoy doing it. If someone could reverse my vote I would appreciate it. ………………………JOE

 

And If the approvers need help I would me more than glad to help out with whatever.

Link to comment

And If the approvers need help I would me more than glad to help out with whatever.

 

While this is off-topic, I would like to point out that Joe is a dang good cacher with an awesome trademark Cache In, Trash-Out signature item. He definitely embodys the spirit of Geocaching. From reading his logs and finding caches he has visited, he could most definitely help-out erik and mtn-man who seem to be the ones that approve caches here in my area. Anyways, I will now return you to your regularly scheduled debate icon_smile.gif

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:

_And If the approvers need help I would me more than glad to help out with whatever. _

 

While this is off-topic, I would like to point out that Joe is a dang good cacher with an awesome trademark Cache In, Trash-Out signature item. He definitely embodys the spirit of Geocaching. From reading his logs and finding caches he has visited, he could most definitely help-out erik and mtn-man who seem to be the ones that approve caches here in my area. Anyways, I will now return you to your regularly scheduled debate icon_smile.gif

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....


I'm sure alot of us would be willing to help out, and I'm guessing as they need more help, TPTB will ask those that they feel are suited to the job at hand.

 

I understand being shorthanded, but i also understand the old adage "too many cooks spoil the stew", which is something I think they are trying to avoid.

 

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

Link to comment

Just a thought. Every time people are in an organized large search for something (like the shuttle), there will be a newbie that asks if there are any geocachers helping or that we should help. Then there is a reply pointing out that we already have the coordinates and then look for a cache and these searches are the other way around.

 

Let me just point this out here. I have done a few locationless and don't really care if they are around or not, but I do have to say most of them don't require much thought on the placers part. But, they are THE OPPOSITE of geocaching. Another page, another site, which ever I don't care, but I haven't read any arguments other than "I like to do them" as to why they need to be with the geocaches.

 

smiles_63.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Link to comment

quote:
At this point you're just going to have to trust me and the merit of my request. If not I doubt anything would sway you anyway.

I'm all for improving locationless caches -- and other types, too! -- and if you say you need to suspend approvals to do that, then no problem. However, I voted NO because a good case was not made for how suspending them would help. There is roughly one locationless cache approved per day; even if half of submissions were rejected, that's still down in the noise. The workload problem is caused by too many traditional caches, so finding an efficient way of dealing with them is more pertinent to the stated problem.

 

Footnote: An example of how crazy the traditional caches have become came home to me recently when I realized that I've logged 3 traditional caches at the same site within the past year for two different locations! That's six caches. They come and go every few months and another takes their place. A lot of work for the approvers.

 

Also, a reference was made to gray areas in the guidelines. What, specifically? They seem fairly clear, lacking only some examples to illustrate the points. The problem seems to be that people don't read the guidelines (nor, I must add, do the approvers always follow them). How will a moratorium help? What's being planned other than segregating locationless caches to another area?

 

Jeremy, you and the crew of volunteers have done a great job with the website. My inclination is to trust your opinion, but I don't get a warm feeling here. For one thing, it's ironic how so many people have expressed a definitive opinion who admit to rarely or never having done a locationless cache.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:

...many people have expressed a definitive opinion who admit to rarely or never having done a locationless cache.


Because I may have given this impression with my earlier statements, I wanted to make it more clear.

 

In fact, I've logged one locationless. It was for getting a speeding ticket on the way to a cache. Later I decided that it was kinda lame, and I wanted the integrity of my find count to remain, so I changed the log from a find to a note.

 

I've also read through a number of locationless. Each time I see a yellow Jeep, I think of taking a picture.

 

For a short time, we had a scavenger hunt-type cache in the area. To log it, one would have had to go eat at a particular local restaurant. I thought about logging it, but then decided against it.

 

What made me decide not to log these? Because my find count represents the number of caches I've found, and these just aren't geocaches.

 

There aren't many (if any) people who have stated that locationless can't be enjoyable. They do get you outside. They do sometimes bring you to new places you'd likely never otherwise visit. They do let you use your GPS in a new way. I doubt many people would argue those points.

 

They just aren't the same. Physical geocaches and locationless are different games.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

I've done two, one a cheese factory that was the only one in my state and the other a drive in theater because I thought it was neat. I think some are too plentiful to be good candidates (paintball field, weathervane, stone walls - etc). However, I've always been surprised at the backlash of locationless caches when I never see any negative comments about virtual caches or webcam caches. As far as reorganizing them - Do what ever the system needs to do. I would like to see some restrictions on what can be an acceptable locationless cache.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

Yes. Let's lower the level of cache approvals. Here's a quote from a recent virtual cache that was not approved.

 

quote:
The goal of this cache is to record the rate of decay of this particular dead juvenile Blue-footed booby. The bird is located right in the middle of the trail. As you get close, keep the photograph in mind, and use the rocks in the picture for reference. This was the only dead booby directly in the middle of the trail. There will be other dead birds in the future, but I would like to track the decay of this particular one.

 


 

For pete's sake, what kind of synaptic dysfunction caused this? Yeah, I think most of us would like to track the decay of a certain "booby" that suggests such a thing. I have found 1 locationless because I happened to be there. As earlier, they are boring and leave me cold. This one is just sick.

 

By appointment to the Court of HRM Queen Mikki I.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Eswau:

However, I've always been surprised at the backlash of locationless caches when I never see any negative comments about virtual caches or webcam caches.


 

Good point. There are some truly lame VC's and they don't get the same shattering that LC's get. I wonder if its that many of the VC's are pretty good, while most of the LC's are flops?

 

By appointment to the Court of HRM Queen Mikki I.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by bigredmed:

quote:
Originally posted by Eswau:

However, I've always been surprised at the backlash of locationless caches when I never see any negative comments about virtual caches or webcam caches.


 

Good point. There are some truly lame VC's and they don't get the same shattering that LC's get. I wonder if its that many of the VC's are pretty good, while most of the LC's are flops?


 

It think this whole moratorium thing is not raised because of lameness of certain cache type, although most people seem to concentrate on only that side. LC's are just becoming their own group, like benchmarks, what's the big deal? You still can choose whether you want to log them or not.

 

Lameness is a problem of every cache type. Your regular lame Drive & Dump cache is no better than a lame VC or LC. But that's a different topic.

 

Someone argued against term photocaching, because there's no real cache involved. How about Photolocating? Or Photonavigating? icon_razz.gif

 

Thanks for sharing the decaying bird cache story. I had a good laugh. I bet if the movie director John Waters from Baltimore was a geocacher, that would have been his suggestion for a VC. icon_biggrin.gif

 

- All you need is a sick mind and a healthy body. -

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

I am sure I will be quoted. Have at it. I do my best and love what I do.


 

I didn't know it was a volunteer job. I thought you were very fair with me when I had trouble with one of my caches.

 

I hope I wasn't rude to you about all the issues I was having.

 

Gary

 

Mice_in_Snake.jpg

Capn Skully

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