Jump to content

Should this cache be posted?


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

We posted the following cache:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=23336

 

and it was disapproved with a reference to the new locationless cache requirements saying it wasn't "special enough". Before posting the cache, we had already read the new requirements and thought that this cache met the requirements. We've thought about it for a while and still think it meets the requirements, so we decided to ask here.

 

You can't just log any skyscraper, it must be a building that was once the tallest building in the state. We think that any building meeting this criteria is of special historical interest and there are certainly coffee table books on skyscrapers.

Link to comment

It seems to meet the requirements. I have seen coffee table books on skyscrapers and have even seen specials on the Discovery Channel.

 

Seems to me that locationless is the steepchild of geocaching and doesn't have many supporters.

 

Good luck

 

Weezer

Link to comment

While I was down and out with a twisted ankle and a stiched up hand I was trying to figure out a way to stay in the game. So I came up with a locationless cache myself and it was archived jonny on the spot. I felt mine meet all the requirements also, but I got over it dropped the issue at hand. Good Try.

 

Keep Hiking

Team SuperGenius

Pepper

GC603D

SuperGenius-#4 Have A Seat

 

Horizontals where it's at!

Link to comment

Seems like it has historical significance to me. Maybe if you changed to be the CURRENT tallest building in the state/province? Like Lazyboy said, you're going to have a hard time getting a locationless cache approved, since it seems the majority of cachers (or at least the vocal majority) don't like them and the admins are moving that way too.

 

----

Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together.

Link to comment

I don't see how this differs from the benchmark caches they have going now. I personally like to see pictures from different parts of the world. Then again the basis of Geocaching is to locate certain coordinates someone else posted. I tried a locationless cache recently and it didn't fly. I think they should just go ahead and just ban them. Stop delaying the inevitable.

 

geosigbuscard.jpg

Link to comment

I checked on the amount of locationless caches. There have only been two approved in the past week or so. It's much more difficult these days. Again it's Jeremy's website and I respect that. Perhaps another site will arrise that will be just for locationless caches. Since there are many of us that enjoy doing that too.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gloom:

Seems like it has historical significance to me. Maybe if you changed to be the CURRENT tallest building in the state/province? ...


 

Our reason for this cache was to find out about buildings that were the Empire State Building or the Sears Tower of their day. If we limit it to the current tallest building, there are only 51 in the USA including DC. The real jewels we're trying to learn about are ones built in the late 19th and early 20th century that are fading into the past even though they were once the pride of their state.

Link to comment

If this one is not acceptable, then I doubt that many more locationless caches ever will be. I have been thinking of some ideas for a good locationless cache, but seeing that this one was not approved, I don't think any of my ideas would be either.

 

I am beginning to wonder what Geocaching.com has in mind when approving locationless caches - they appear to be looking to accumulate only "quality" data, that will be of interest to a broad customer base. I think the locationless cache fans are going to have to go somewhere else

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

Link to comment

As someone else said, there are books on the subject. Unless there is something special about coffee table books that makes them a special catagory.... I think its a totally valid cache under the current rules. I think only going for the current record holder would be way too limiting, plus how would one necesarily even find out what is the current holder? on the other hand I wouldn't have a clue how to ascertain past record holders either. That to me is the fun of the locationless cache. Too bad too many lame ideas made it past the screening process and everybody got all up in arms about it.

 

disclaimer: I'm as guilty as anyone else in that respect, having submitted several that in retrospect i realize were just plain stupid. On the other hand, they did fit into the concept of locationless caches at the time...

Link to comment

Looks to be more of a scavanger hunt type cache.

 

Caches dubbed "scavenger hunt caches" will no longer be approved unless they meet the guidelines above.

 

Maybe I'm missing something though.

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Harrald:

Looks to be more of a scavanger hunt type cache.

 

_Caches dubbed "scavenger hunt caches" will no longer be approved unless they meet the guidelines above._


 

But what exactly is a scavanger hunt cache, and how is it different from a locationless cache?

 

----

Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together.

Link to comment

I will go ahead and explain why I do not think it should be approved...

 

At one time, and two story adobe hut could have been the tallest building around. A cache that is for THE tallest building might be novel, but this one does nothing for me. But I am one of those that thinks the GPS should come first frankly. I do not see how you can compare this 'find a tall building' cache to benchmark hunting since you have a coordinate for that BM and then you go see if it is still there! That is a good find anywhere (or locationless) idea to me, and one that I have logged.

 

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

I will go ahead and explain why I do not think it should be approved...

 

At one time, and two story adobe hut could have been the tallest building around. A cache that is for THE tallest building might be novel, but this one does nothing for me. ...


 

IF that two story adobe hut still exists, AND it is documented in a reputable source (newspaper, magazine, book, plaque on the site, etc.) that it was once the tallest building in the state, then yes, it would be a valid find. It would also be one heck of an historic find as well.

 

We never intended this to just be a 'find a tall building and log it' cache.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by David & Diana:

We never intended this to just be a 'find a tall building and log it' cache.


But that is exactly what your cache is, isn't it? It seems to go exactly against the second new rule:

quote:
2. Locationless caches must be novel, meaning of interest to someone else. Something you'd expect to find in coffee table book format. Good examples would be Burma Shave signs (americana), dinosaur sculptures of the world, mazes of the world. Bad examples are "manhole covers of the world" or "American flags on poles." The interest is in the uncommon, not the common. Views (cityscapes, etc), however spectacular, do not count as well.

Tall buildings are very common, while a two story adobe hut is historical. I do not think Geocachers would go visit a tall building because someone logged it as a find, but they might go visit a two story adobe hut that was still around. How many tourist plan their trip to NC around a visit to the Reynolds Building in Winston-Salem, NC. (Oh boy, we get to visit the Reynolds Building!!! Yeah, who wants to go to the beach anyway!) My guess is not many if any.

 

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by David & Diana:

We never intended this to just be a 'find a tall building and log it' cache.


quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

But that is exactly what your cache is, isn't it?


To jump in on this...No, it ISN'T. To quote the cache description page: "Locate a building that was once the tallest building in the state or province. [...] The height does not matter as long as it once held the record."

 

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

 

Tall buildings are very common, while a two story adobe hut is historical. I do not think Geocachers would go visit a tall building because someone logged it as a find, but they might go visit a two story adobe hut that was still around.


 

ALL previous record-holders have a certain amount of historical significance. Definitely some will be more novel and interesting than others. But, all in all, it almost sounds to me like you are arguing FOR this cache, rather than against it. icon_wink.gif

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" 196939_800.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by David & Diana:

We never intended this to just be a 'find a tall building and log it' cache.


quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

But that is exactly what your cache is, isn't it?


To jump in on this...No, it ISN'T. To quote the cache description page: "Locate a building that was once the tallest building in the state or province. [...] The height does not matter as long as it once held the record."

 

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

 

Tall buildings are very common, while a two story adobe hut is historical. I do not think Geocachers would go visit a tall building because someone logged it as a find, but they might go visit a two story adobe hut that was still around.


 

ALL previous record-holders have a certain amount of historical significance. Definitely some will be more novel and interesting than others. But, all in all, it almost sounds to me like you are arguing FOR this cache, rather than against it. icon_wink.gif

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" 196939_800.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

But, all in all, it almost sounds to me like you are arguing FOR this cache, rather than against it. icon_wink.gif


Sorry that my explaination is as confusing to you as your geocaching nickname is to me. icon_rolleyes.gif I do not think that finding tall buildings is "novel, meaning of interest to someone else." I do not plan part of my time while on vacation to go by the formerly tallest building in the state. However, an adobe mission building would be novel and would interest me, but not because it is was tall. It would be novel because of the history and events that happened there at it.

 

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

But, all in all, it almost sounds to me like you are arguing FOR this cache, rather than against it. icon_wink.gif


Sorry that my explaination is as confusing to you as your geocaching nickname is to me. icon_rolleyes.gif I do not think that finding tall buildings is "novel, meaning of interest to someone else." I do not plan part of my time while on vacation to go by the formerly tallest building in the state. However, an adobe mission building would be novel and would interest me, but not because it is was tall. It would be novel because of the history and events that happened there at it.

 

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

 

Sorry that my explaination is as confusing to you as your geocaching nickname is to me. icon_rolleyes.gif


 

LOL! The story behind my name is revealed here.

 

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

 

I do not think that finding tall buildings is "_novel, meaning of interest to someone else._" I do not plan part of my time while on vacation to go by the formerly tallest building in the state. However, an adobe mission building would be novel and would interest me, but not because it is was tall. It would be novel because of the history and events that happened there at it.


 

I think it's interesting that a lot of people seem to be voting against allowing this cache to be posted just because it is not of interest to them.

 

To tell you the truth, I wouldn't likely do this cache myself...but I can still see how it offers something 'novel', that may be of interest to SOME people. (Obviously, NO caches will sound interesting to everyone else.)

 

Adobe mission buildings don't interest me, either. But that doesn't mean I think we should disallow a cache for finding them just because they aren't my cup of tea.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

 

Sorry that my explaination is as confusing to you as your geocaching nickname is to me. icon_rolleyes.gif


 

LOL! The story behind my name is revealed here.

 

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

 

I do not think that finding tall buildings is "_novel, meaning of interest to someone else._" I do not plan part of my time while on vacation to go by the formerly tallest building in the state. However, an adobe mission building would be novel and would interest me, but not because it is was tall. It would be novel because of the history and events that happened there at it.


 

I think it's interesting that a lot of people seem to be voting against allowing this cache to be posted just because it is not of interest to them.

 

To tell you the truth, I wouldn't likely do this cache myself...but I can still see how it offers something 'novel', that may be of interest to SOME people. (Obviously, NO caches will sound interesting to everyone else.)

 

Adobe mission buildings don't interest me, either. But that doesn't mean I think we should disallow a cache for finding them just because they aren't my cup of tea.

Link to comment

quote:
I do not think that finding tall buildings is "novel, meaning of interest to someone else."

and therein lies the root of the problem. Instead of having caches that many of us like it's come down to a popularity contest. I'm not interested in tall buildings so there shouldn't be a cache like that.

 

The entire "novel" approach to locationless is a joke as far as I'm concerned. Locationless has to be novel but trust me, very few of you have placed a novel cache.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

Link to comment

Well, to go back to the point... should this cache be posted... the votes say 12 yes and 23 no as I type this message. I would say the majority has spoken. If you think your locationless cache should be posted, then create a topic in the forums and see what the masses say.

 

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

Link to comment

Thank you for proving my point then mtn-man. It's a popularity contest that really matters to you.

 

Think about it, 1/3 of the users here want this sort of cache approved. We aren't electing an official here, we're trying to make this hobby something that appeals to all. So we've decided that 1/3 of the users opinions don't matter.

 

It's ok, competition can only make the hobby better for all. If another site can grow because of appealing to 1/3 of the cachers here then we will all benefit in the long run, right?

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

Thank you for proving my point then mtn-man. It's a popularity contest that really matters to you.


 

Last time I checked the forum was a "Second" chance for caches that were denied by the moderators. Not a popularity contest.

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

Link to comment

Yeah, I was trying to get back to the point of the topic. This was the second chance for this cache and it was voted down again. How many times do you have to say no to some people before it means no. Do we have to have a third vote now for this cache? icon_eek.gif

 

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

Link to comment

Yeah, I was trying to get back to the point of the topic. This was the second chance for this cache and it was voted down again. How many times do you have to say no to some people before it means no. Do we have to have a third vote now for this cache? icon_eek.gif

 

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

Link to comment

I've gotta agree, this one is a no post.

 

After all, at one point a Native American tipi, long lodge, or hut was the tallest point in most areas.

 

A bit too nebulous for my taste, and I like locationless caches.

 

-----------

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." - Mark Twain

Link to comment

As much as I hate to be a wet blanket, I have to agree with Da Rebel.

 

I think that if you narrowed the scope of the thing, it would help. I don't know if "Tallest Building in Each Decade" would be narrow enough, even.

 

I can also see a lot of rules lawyering. Tallest building can be argued different ways. Do you count any antennas that are on there? What about decorative extensions that are not useful parts of the building?

 

I love old buildings.

 

I just think that if you have a cache that has a lot of potential for "is not" and "is too", it needs more refinement.

 

Personally, I would find a cache of "Tallest Building on the Day You Were Born" to be interesting, but even that would be so open to interpretation that I can't imagine it being approved.

 

Shannah

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...