Moratorium on Locationless Caches

7.2k · February 11, 2003

Thanks Jeremy. Hey Jamie... back at ya'!!! Hehe.

Capn Scully, you were no problem. I don't mind good discussion, and I have been swayed with a good argument. No worries.

Soon locationless items will be "Points of Interest". They are not going away. They will be handled differently. It would be interesting if people would actually visit these locationless targets after they are found instead of just seeking them out for a cache log. That is one bad thing. I never have heard of that happening.

Again, the discussion is not about the merits of locationless caches. If you want locationless caches to stay then guess what -- you win! The discussion is regarding suspending their submission for a short time.

Please understand this... the influx of other caches is not that bad now. We have added several admins including admins from outside of America. That helped tremendously. No more translation of cache pages! Bonus! Now the queue stays at a reasonable size most of the time. The issue is the emails back and forth on the locationless submissions. There are emails with the other ones, like the two caches near railroads that I had to archive tonight. I have standard stuff on a word document for that. Cut and paste. But the locationless are different because there is always a different nuance that must be dealt with. And then there is the back and forth rules issue I spoke of above if they are archived. I would guess that 60 to 70 percent of the discussions between admins at one point were about the merits of different locationless submissions. Jeremy surprised us with this poll, though we have asked for some sort of relief.

There are 42,085 active caches total, and there are 321 locationless caches (as I write this). There are well over 60,000 or 70,000 registered Geocachers, but the cache with the largest amount of total logs has about 450 logs. They take up a disproportionate amount of time.

February 11, 2003

I agree that locationless caches should have their own arena. The question before us relates only to the approval process being bogged down by volume.

I find that locationless caches open my eyes to things around me that I might not have otherwise noticed, yellow jeeps notwithstanding. I will continue to seek them.

February 11, 2003

We've enjoyed many of the locationless caches on a historical note. We're getting an education and enjoying foreign travel by having watches on such caches as Covered Bridges, Ancient Navigational Aids, and Historic Arsenal. We've been amazed at the response of our Blue Star Memorial as we were only aware of California's memorials and enjoy ALL the posts from the different states. As for Chess for Kings the 3rd and 4th graders at our Elementary school enjoy seeing the different indoor/outdoor lifesize chess games in the U.S. and foreign countries. The Mermaid directed us to a great website about the Little Mermaid in Denmark that we found very enlightening. If it wasn't for locationless we wouldn't know about the Kissmobile coming to our area in November. We'll be sorry if they are omitted. :rolleyes

February 11, 2003

Just for the record Jeremey has been the one pushing us as admins to give the locationless caches a fair shake and approve them if they meet the requirements. He's actually defended their merit on many ocassions to some of the harsher locationless critics.

I personally think they don't fit as caches however seeking them out is a cool activity in itself. To me a geocache is seeking out a set of coordinates to find some object either a physical cache or virtual. I think developing a seperate system such as what exists for benchmarks is a great idea. If they're seperated out like the benchmarks I'd actually be more apt to hunt them. As it stands now I don't log them because I don't want them in my cache logs and stats.

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!

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

Hope is the destination that we seek.

Love is the road that leads to hope.

Courage is the motor that drives us.

We travel out of darkness into faith.

-=The Book Of Counted Sorrows=-

February 11, 2003

We too have Locationless caches.

We have tried to make them interesting and a challange to find.

We find that some locationless caches are much more challaging than some of the micro caches that seem to be popping up under anything that can be lifted.

We do agree that they should be in there own place to let those of us who enjoy them do so in peace.

20.7k · February 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by bigredmed:
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?

To this, I would have to disagree. Most of the virts that I've seen have either been a historical marker or the previous spot of a long dead regular cache. These can be somewhat interesting, but most are rather lame.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

February 12, 2003

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?

Lazyboy, are you sleeping in class again? They'll be reincarnated on a different site or something. Like the benchmarks. They aren't getting dropped altogether. You'll still get to post them and find them. It just might not be until spring. This is what I am gathering from Jeremy's posts anyway.

[This message was edited by Seth! on February 12, 2003 at 08:32 AM.]

February 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:
Most of the virts that I've seen have either been a historical marker or the previous spot of a long dead regular cache. These can be somewhat interesting, but most are rather lame.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

You did at least one of the virtuals i placed in Brooklyn, NY. I hope you didnt think it was lame. If you did, i would hope you had the guts to say so.

SR and dboggny.

20.7k · February 12, 2003

SR&D-

My point was that I disagree that the average virt is that much more fulfilling than the average LC. There are lame examples of each.

I checked to see which cache you were referring to. I walked over from Manhatten to find your cache (failing to find one of Cache Ninja's on the way). Your virt was fine, but I wouldn't say that was any more fun than a good LC. They're just different.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

4.7k · February 12, 2003

i'm in favor of not overtaxing the approval staff.

i'm in favor of rules clarification.

i have no objection to placing locationless in a category of their own.

i do object to removing them entirely, since some people really like them.

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

8.9k · February 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by flask:
i do object to removing them entirely, since some people really like them.

Since no one is suggesting that, I'd say your vote is that it is OK to PLACE A TEMPORARY MORATORIAM ON APPROVING NEW LOCATIONLESS CACHES. You can still log them. Others will be approved when the new format comes out. <>

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

February 12, 2003

As the owner of a locationless cache, I have voted to suspend them for now. I think creating their category is a great idea and should make it easier and more clear as to the guidelines for posting one. I know mine was a nightmare to get through even though the item you are looking for is fairly unique. Looking forward to the changeover.

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

Team Gizmo

"Honk if your horn is broken!"

February 12, 2003

What can I say, if you don't like 'em, ignore 'em.

I vote to keep them. I have been watching the boards for the last few months and it sure looks like there is a strong bias against "non-traditional" caches. I summarize it as "If it's not a bucket in the woods, then it ain't geocachin!" I think that the sport of geoching is still to young to start throwing out whole catagories of caches. Lets keep them, I think there is a place for all the geocaching styles, even those that have not been thought up yet. If we start limiting the options now, new and exciting things to do with GPS will never have a chance to grow. After all, every style of cache was at one time new.

there is room for all flowers in the garden

.

Swanlakers

February 13, 2003

I'm for the suspension of locationless caches. Let's face it there are over 300 of them active now. I can almost guarantee that none of you has found every one of them. So, until they are made available again on the new system what have you got to loose? You've still got a few hundred to pad your stats between now and then.

Heck, I'd even archive mine (one) if they were to be axed all together. Won't hurt me a bit. I've seen some very creative ones, and some that I've actually learned something from but unfortunately the majority are too lame for me to bother finding. I have on occasions logged a few because I happened to pass it by, but I'd never go out of my way for one. And as for the ones that do get posted, Which I might add recently is mostly Jeremy's doing.. I'm sure if most of the approvers had thier way we'd archive them all. They take up too much time to research one cache when you've got 50 traditional waiting in queue.

The same goes for most virtual caches.. Just a few weeks ago just to prove my point I found 10 virtual caches in Wash. DC without even leaving my desktop. Of course I did not log them as a find but I found everything I needed to answer the questions and claim a find with the help of a few search engines, and in some instances the cache owner paved the way by providing the links right on the cache page!

So you can partially blame me for wanting a break from the lameness, because after seeing some of the complete wastes of time that people try to slip by us has soured my taste for them all. Now I just ignore them and move on to a physical cache.

Jeremy's ruling on this issue was to give them a fair chance before archiving them or ignore them and someone else will review them. So, I wouldn't go around blaming Jeremy for 'being negitive' about locationless caches. He's the one who has stood up for you guy's that like them. Instead, you should be thanking him.

Randall J. Berry

davros@mdgps.net

www.mdgps.net

6.4k · February 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Swanlakers:
I vote to keep them.

There is currently no vote running to keep scavenger hunt type caches or drop them from the site.

What we ARE voting on is if they should continue on as is, or suspend approving ANY NEW ONES for a few months to give the staff at GC.com a chance to catch up and design a section specifically for them. If you DO Like these these type of caches, you should be among the 1st to vote to suspend/redo them, because the current site is set up to cater to traditional caches. Most of the info on the current hide a cache form does not apply to scavenger hunt caches, and there is no easy way to to search the site for one right now. Once you do find an interesting one, there is no easy way to see what ones have already been done, except for manually entering each one into some mapping software. Here is a chance for GC.com to tap a new market for geocaches, if you will. I am truly amazed that out of all the people who claim to like doing them, nobody has set up a competing site just for them. The current site here is so unsuited to that style of cache, just about anyone could have made a better site for them, and tapped into the millions of dollars Jeremy makes off this website.

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

February 13, 2003

I have always made it a point to disagree with everyone at every possible opportunity.

I cannot change my spots. I disagree. Again.

Now that that's cleared up, I vote that we suspend them for now.

Being an expert cross-dressing cacher, I have done a few of each type, and the locationless ones are passee.

You can never count on other cachers being at some locationles cache, so they are not able to admire your new dress, high heels, or that single white sequin glove! I say, "Give me numbers, or give me death!"

Definately, let me be seen, and not locationless...

--majicman

My new book available now!: (http://www.mcwj.com )

1.3k · February 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
There is currently no vote running to keep scavenger hunt type caches or drop them from the site.

There is currently no need to vote about them, as scavenger hunt caches are no longer approved. I tried to build a scavenger hunt cache for Finland only, few weeks ago, but it was not approved.

20.7k · February 13, 2003

Good golly Davros, you're not shy about your opinions, are you?

I actually would prefer if all the admins kept an open mind about all cache types. Certainly you've also seen regular caches that were lame, haven't you?

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

February 13, 2003

[... quote from mtn-man ...]

There are 42,085 active caches total, and there are 321 locationless caches (as I write this). There are well over 60,000 or 70,000 registered Geocachers, but the cache with the largest amount of total logs has about 450 logs. They take up a disproportionate amount of time.

[... end quote ...]

By my math, 321 is a pretty darn small percentage of the active caches, I don't understand the 'disproportionate amount of time' comment at all.

But no objections here in the suspension.

Heck, I'd like to see virtual caches in a separate category as well. I'd guess the number of those is pretty high....

7.2k · February 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
I would guess that 60 to 70 percent of the discussions between admins at one point were about the merits of different locationless submissions...

There are 42,085 active caches total, and there are 321 locationless caches (as I write this). There are well over 60,000 or 70,000 registered Geocachers, but the cache with the largest amount of total logs has about 450 logs. They take up a disproportionate amount of time.

vds, that is what I mean... spending 60 to 70 percent of our time on submissions that represent 0.007627 of the active caches. Once they have been restructured and the guidelines for submission are relaxed then issues will go away I'm sure. I also feel personally that once cachers don't get a tick on their find count that interest in them will dwindle significantly. I don't think virtuals should be separated off since most people understand the guidelines for them and a GPS is used to find them rather than just finding an item and then getting a coordinate for it. Then again, this topic is only regarding a Moratorium on locationless caches and not the merits of them.

February 14, 2003

1. If you had asked me this question a few months ago I would have said to forget about locationless caches. They sound silly. They aren't like "real" caches. But what's a "real" cache? You say that a lot of the locationless caches are posted on a whim and don't have any thought put into them. Well, that can be said of traditional caches as well. I take a lot of thought and effort and creativity to make my traditional caches. Those in San Diego will back me on that I think. However, I encounter people with 1 find who throw some crappy thin plastic box out containing McToys into an ugly area and call it a geocache. Is that any different? They don't maintain the thing and it goes to hell. I just posted my own first locationless called "The Bells of El Camino Real." I put a lot of time and effort into it, and now it's going to be relegated to some second rate crappy status. That makes me upset. It's a geocache dammit. It's just as good as some stupid virtual of a boring plaque that someone posts the coordinates for. It's better. I maintain that there's really no big difference between a well thought out locationless and a virtual. The only thing that differentiates them is that in one case the owner provides the coordinates and in the other the finder does.

2. Who is voting to suspend the locationless caches as "real" caches, and not just for a temporary moratorium? Have they all done them? A few said they have. How do we know if Joe Cacher has zero finds or 1000? I found over 300 regular caches before I found one locationless and I've realized that they can take more effort to find than some traditional caches on summits! Some are easy, some are hard, just like traditional caches.

3. When you've exhausted most of the caches in your area that you can grab after work on a weekday, the locationless caches let you continue to play the game. I can't drive 40 miles or climb 1000 feet to find a cache after work. Remember that for the future Mr. "I have 5 cache finds."

4. Locationless caches can provide a public service. For instance, the guidepost bells on El Camino Real in California and Baja are only vaguely located on official lists. Even those interested in finding and preserving the 100 year old bells don't know where they all are. Neither does the Dept of Transportation. However, WE can find all ~400 of them! Isn't that a good thing? Don't the finders deserve credit and a stupid point for doing that?

5. What needs to happen is that people need to follow the RULES! Both cache owners and finders need to follow the rules and guidelines. The owners need to search the list to see if the idea has been done. Why are there two National Register caches? Why are there two steam locomotive caches? If a list of SUBJECTS (instead of meaningless and cryptic names) existed, the process would be much easier. Cache owners need to delete finds with no GPSr in the photo as well as bogus reports. Not doing so just encourages cheating. (Why the hell do people cheat anyway? No one's giving you money or anything. Do you geeks impress the babes with your numbers?) By all means post guidelines and restrictions, but don't put locationless caches into some second rate category. You'll see the locationless caches die out if you do that. Some people here probably want that.

P.S. Thank you to all you guys and gals for your efforts and sorry for taking flack for your hard work. I do realize it can be a thankless service to the rest of us. There are stupid cache ideas (and dangerous ones too). If you need a break for a while to figure things out, that's fine. I'd just ask that you let the locationless geocaches remain on the normal lists for those who wish to find them. If someone doesn't want to find them, they don't have to do them.

Parsa

[This message was edited by Parsa on February 14, 2003 at 09:34 PM.]

February 15, 2003

I like locationless caches, they are getting me through my first winter as a cache hunter.. Whenever I get the urge to fill a log, i'm motivated to go for a walk to bag one...And the fun of trying to catch the only yellow jeep in town parked for a pic...seriously though I've found out about places in the area that I would never have known about, so YES to locationless, and YES to the idea's Markwell posted on page 2 I think....Thanks Jeremmy for asking our opinion's

My 2 bit's worth....1 bit CDN.......

Without your brain, a map is a piece of coloured paper, a compass is a glorified magnet, and a GPS is a waterproof battery case." " FSAR "

February 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
Once they have been restructured and the guidelines for submission are relaxed then issues will go away I'm sure.

So, the strategy is to segregate locationless caches, add a few search & display features, and forget about them. That's one way to avoid dealing with approvals but hardly an improvement: less work, perhaps, but the outcome is likely to be even lower quality caches. I'd rather see an improved submittal form tied to concise guidelines, so that approvers don't have to make as many judgement calls and won't get distracted by cache subjects they don't understand; segregation of cache types is not necessary with that appraoch.

2.3k · February 15, 2003

oops

February 15, 2003

This clown just goes to prove my point. Those that cry the loudest about nonsense get what they want. Instead of acting like a professional and approving things along the guidlines, he probably tried to find any little reason to S%*t can each and every locationless and virtual cache that came across his screen. thats a shame. I dont want this guy approving my caches when i want to place a new one. i dont have time to jerk around with someone who, out of hand believes what i have placed is lame.

quote:
Originally posted by Davros:
I'm for the suspension of locationless caches. Let's face it there are over 300 of them active now. I can almost guarantee that none of you has found every one of them. So, until they are made available again on the new system what have you got to loose? You've still got a few hundred to pad your stats between now and then.

Heck, I'd even archive mine (one) if they were to be axed all together. Won't hurt me a bit. I've seen some very creative ones, and some that I've actually learned something from but unfortunately the majority are too lame for me to bother finding. I have on occasions logged a few because I happened to pass it by, but I'd never go out of my way for one. And as for the ones that do get posted, Which I might add recently is mostly Jeremy's doing.. I'm sure if most of the approvers had thier way we'd archive them all. They take up too much time to research one cache when you've got 50 traditional waiting in queue.

The same goes for most virtual caches.. Just a few weeks ago just to prove my point I found 10 virtual caches in Wash. DC without even leaving my desktop. Of course I did not log them as a find but I found everything I needed to answer the questions and claim a find with the help of a few search engines, and in some instances the cache owner paved the way by providing the links right on the cache page!

So you can partially blame me for wanting a break from the lameness, because after seeing some of the complete wastes of time that people try to slip by us has soured my taste for them all. Now I just ignore them and move on to a physical cache.

Jeremy's ruling on this issue was to give them a fair chance before archiving them or ignore them and someone else will review them. So, I wouldn't go around blaming Jeremy for 'being negitive' about locationless caches. He's the one who has stood up for you guy's that like them. Instead, you should be thanking him.

Randall J. Berry

davros@mdgps.net)

http://www.mdgps.net/MicroLogo.jpg

http://www.mdgps.net

SR and dboggny.

1.6k · February 15, 2003

Suspend 'em, then put 'em in a new category.

And as well, finding one shouldn't count on a cachers normal find qty.

All previous finds that are locationless should be converted to the new category, and removed from the regular find qty.

I'm probably one of the minority who feel that people should have to be members to upload pictures. Locationless caches tend to create more than an average quantity of pictures.

Cheers,

canadazuuk

February 16, 2003

I log my presonal TB in and out of caches, including virtual and locationless, so I can keep track of where I've been. If it's possible can you skipped the accumulation of miles for locationless caches. I know it requires a bit of coding but it would be nice.

Thanks Jeremy this is a super hobby and has taken me to parks and places I otherwise never would have visited.

6.4k · February 17, 2003

With a whopping 85% in favor!

When can we see an "official" announcement?

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

9.1k · February 17, 2003

Mopar, I hear that the admins are too busy trashing your cache submissions. So the official announcement is likely to be delayed.

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?

February 17, 2003

I support Parsa's points

Looking at a sampling of the locationless caches, I notice that most have tens to hundreds of logs. If there are 300 plus caches and each cache actually represents 25 locations, then that is equivalent to 7500 "standard" caches.

Each one of these required someone to actually go somewhere with a GPS and log it. Saying that locationless represents some small percent of "real" caches is a misreading the true work they represent. It seems to me that saying they are "too much trouble" is more of an expression of bias against the style of cache itself. I repeat one of Parsa's comments:

"The only thing that differentiates them is that in one case the owner provides the coordinates and in the other the finder does."

In my opinion they are already segregated, after all you have to search for locationless caches just to find them on the website. Give them their own icon if that will help, but I don't feel they merit a second class standing as "other".

The cool thing about locationless is that I feel some community with cachers far away, not just local. When a locationless cache appears that says basically "keep an eye out for a whatzit" I go "Wow there is one of those right here and I bet no one even knows it!"

One final comment: Locationless, what a lousy name, they all have locations, it's just that the cache author doesn't know them all

Swanlakers

1.8k · February 17, 2003

quote:
Swanlakers wrote:
One final comment: Locationless, what a lousy name, they all have locations, it's just that the cache author doesn't know them all

Yes, I agree. Perhaps if they are moved to a separate section they could be given a more sensible name at the same time.

Bill

1.6k · February 17, 2003

Have to weigh in here again. Locationless caches are not caches at all. The only reason they are included at all is the fact that you have to post coordinates and/or a picture with your GPS in it.

You don't use a GPS to search for them. I've been told pure letterboxes aren't allowed unless you provide a way for someone to use a GPS to find it. In other words, if you don't use a GPS, it ain't allowed.

With locationless caches, you don't use a GPS to find it. You only use one to log it. That's it.

I feel locationless caches deserve its own category. Benchmarks have its own category and it's more like caching than locationless caches.

CR

February 17, 2003

Yea what Sissy-n-CR said.

_________________________________________________________

On the other hand, you have different fingers.

February 17, 2003

There have been numerous statements to the effect that setting up a co-site for locationless caches would be relegating them to second-class status or spinning them off to die. I disagree. Creating a section specifically tailored to this activity will enable it to develop on it’s own and open up possibilities that could never have happened under the current system. This new section will only be second rate if those of us who create and seek out locationless caches let it be second rate.

http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

1.6k · February 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Whidbey Walk:
There have been numerous statements to the effect that setting up a co-site for locationless caches would be relegating them to second-class status or spinning them off to die. I disagree. Creating a section specifically tailored to this activity will enable it to develop on it’s own and open up possibilities that could never have happened under the current system. This new section will only be second rate if those of us who create and seek out locationless caches let it be second rate.

http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

I concur. With a dedicated system you could see if any locationless caches have been found in your area. Actually shown on a map or download all of the coordinates from the logs. You could show all, one, or a list of the ones you are interested in. This system would be useless with the rest of caching.

That's not to mention photo albums or categorizing the locationlesses. Because most locationless caches can be anywhere, and there are so many, it would make sense to be able to search on keywords, ignore, tag, or whatever, them. You could flag some locationless caches to download logged coords through queries so you can go see the cache found in your area, as well, if you wanted.

I feel locationless caches are a completely different animal and deserves its own area.

How about "Spotting" or "GeoSpotting" as a new name? Tag line, "Spot it? Log it!"

CR

February 18, 2003

quote:
With locationless caches, you don't use a GPS to find it. You only use one to log it. That's it.

I feel locationless caches deserve its own category. Benchmarks have its own category and it's more like caching than locationless caches.

No, it's true you don't need a GPSr to find a locationless. However, a GPSr is needed to log most if not all locationless caches, as you stated. When I go to get a locationless I have to do more work than for simple traditional caches. I have to walk out with my GPSr, the log sheet, and a camera. I have to have a picture featuring the GPSr (and sometimes me) in one photo. I often need to do research to get information on what I'm logging. It does definitely involve the use of GPS technology. Again I say that it's just a slight difference in the use of the GPSr. Why are people so concerned that these are counted as regular caches? What's the big deal? Do some people have a chip on their shoulder about folks who find locationless caches? If people are going out and having fun, what's the harm of logging them as finds?

As for benchmarks; I've visited several and found a few, and I can tell you that the coordinates for the vertical control points are often useless. You are really mostly following the description and don't need a GPSr at all. Sometimes the coordinates are a block or two away. Personally, I wouldn't object to horizontal points counting as virtuals if a photo were taken.

Parsa

1.6k · February 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

I feel locationless caches are a completely different animal and deserves its own area.

How about "Spotting" or "GeoSpotting" as a new name? Tag line, "Spot it? Log it!"

I like that term.

I don't really care if they call it something else or not, I just think that to keep the game pure and let apples and apples be compared, you need to keep physical caches separate from non physical caches.

I also am in favor of limiting pic uploads to members only. Members help to support the site, and while non-members help the sport, its not very expensive to join. This would encourage new players to plunk down their $30 and join.

By appointment to the Court of HRM Queen Mikki I.

3.1k · February 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Parsa:
...a GPSr is needed to log most if not all locationless caches, as you stated. When I go to get a locationless I have to do more work than for simple traditional caches. I have to walk out with my GPSr, the log sheet, and a camera. I have to have a picture featuring the GPSr (and sometimes me) in one photo. I often need to do research to get information on what I'm logging. It does definitely involve the use of GPS technology. Again I say that it's just a slight difference in the use of the GPSr. Why are people so concerned that these are counted as regular caches? What's the big deal? Do some people have a chip on their shoulder about folks who find locationless caches? If people are going out and having fun, what's the harm of logging them as finds?

"Geocaching" does not mean "using a GPS". It means "going to a specific spot and finding a specific thing", as has been pointed out a dozen times in this thread. The point of this site is not to record every possible use of GPS. I can use my GPS for fishing and hunting, too, so why can't I log my successes in those sports here? You just listed several characteristics of locationless that make them different from geocaches yourself. For that matter, geocaching doesn't require a GPS at all; locationless finds do!

A new section is for the betterment of locationless. A new section will allow the many much-needed features for locationless to be implemented. Why is there still an argument?

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

February 18, 2003

I like locationless . Ohio snow and cold kill caching when you have small kids . We drove around looking for locationless caches last weekend and it gave the little ones somthing to look for . I do beleive thay need there own page and could even be separt in listing as found . Like benchmarks are separet from traditional exampale : 50 geocaches /10 photocaches /20 benchmarks.I also like looking to see what others have found . some pictures are of things I would have never seen with out them. when people log the loction of locationless I can go check out the ones in my area . Just my 2 cents worth

8.9k · February 18, 2003

Again - this is just a suspension of approving new locationless caches. Not suspending already existing ones. When you find all 300+ locationless caches, then we can start complaining.

Jeremy indicated that he would take the results up to one week and then if a 2/3 majority agreed, he would suspend.

It's now Feb 18, and the voting is 85% for suspension of NEW locationless caches until such time as the new system is in place to better handle them.

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

2.6k · February 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Dinoprophet:
For that matter, geocaching doesn't _require_ a GPS at all; locationless finds do!

No they don't... If I find an object, I can get a pretty good set of coordinates from lostoutdoors.com

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

20.7k · February 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:...Not suspending already existing ones. When you find all 300+ locationless caches, then we can start complaining.

While I have no problem with suspending approvals, I feel that your comment minimizes peoples valid concerns. The fact is, it would be quite improbable for any cacher to log 'all' of the locationless caches. Also, the 'roll eyes' graemlin further minimizes the issue and insults the individual. I am shocked to see you exhibit this behavior.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

3.1k · February 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinoprophet:
For that matter, geocaching doesn't _require_ a GPS at all; locationless finds do!

No they don't... If I find an object, I can get a pretty good set of coordinates from lostoutdoors.com

Now who would do that? Oh, right. Me. (I honestly forgot about that, good call). Logged as a note, I should mention. If I did log locationlesses as Found, I wouldn't have in that case since I didn't get my own coords.

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

[This message was edited by Dinoprophet on February 18, 2003 at 07:06 PM.]

[This message was edited by Dinoprophet on February 18, 2003 at 07:10 PM.]

February 18, 2003

So, since it's been more than a week now, shall we assume the polling is over and this thread will now be closed?

8.9k · February 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:
While I have no problem with suspending approvals, I feel that your comment minimizes peoples valid concerns. The fact is, it would be quite improbable for any cacher to log 'all' of the locationless caches. Also, the 'roll eyes' graemlin further minimizes the issue and insults the individual. I am shocked to see you exhibit this behavior.

You're right. I guess I was out of sorts when reading this thread earlier today. My apologies if I've offended anyone.

However - my point...

If Jeremy indicated that he was going to place a moratorium on all new cache approvals because he was going to implement some cool new feature to the site, I'd still have PLENTY of caches around to find.

I think the same holds true for a short-term moratorium on new locationless ones. There are a whole lot of locationless caches currently out there that probably could fill the bill for those that love them while the moratorium is in place. And after the moratorium is lifted, I'm sure there will be a tremendous influx of newly approved locationless caches.

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

February 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:
So, since it's been more than a week now, shall we assume the polling is over and this thread will now be closed?

I second the motion.

1.1k · February 19, 2003

Thanks for everyone's votes. I have suspended all new locationless caches until the April/May timeframe, when a better way of dealing with them will be in place. Thanks for everyone's votes. This will greatly help us get the project completed faster.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Moratorium on Locationless Caches

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

Link to comment

Link to comment