Anti-caches, a new category

[+Bloencustoms]

After reading the rock art threads, it is apparent that there are a lot of misinformed, inflexible people who are opposed to caching. How about Anti-caches, coordinates of places to be avioded due to their attitude toward the sport? this would be a great way to check out an area before visiting, and let other cachers know what to expect. You could bring up a page of all the areas in a radius from a given position, and deny them your tourist dollars.

 

Get off the cellphone and DRIVE!

[+Brian - Team A.I.]

There may not be enough storage space or bandwidth to handle a database that large.

[+The Leprechauns]

Success on an anti-cache would be to log a "not found", correct? Well, I do not want the legitimacy of my "not-founds" on traditional caches to be tainted by other people who pad their not-found counts by doing anti-caches.

 

Anti-caches are really a different game. They should have their own separate section on the site.

 

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

I was formerly employed by the Department of Redundancy Department, but I don't work there anymore.

[+fairplay]

Personally, before I go out to seek a cache, I try to prepare myself. A topo card of the region, maybe helpful, a closer look to the region may help you spot dangerous places.

I think that anyway, one of the main rules is not to penetrate private land (without permission of the owner).

I think that anti-caches should be treated outside the side, on s special site.

Anyway, the idea sounds good

 

hello

[+Sissy-n-CR]

But if a cache and an anti-cache touch, the energy released could be enormous! No one has really been able to say, but worse case estimates say the universe as we know it would cease to exist.

 

In all seriousness though, that might not be a bad idea. But an anti-cache would have to have been a cache at one time or all efforts to put one in have failed. We wouldn't want people just throwing up anti-caches because they didn't like someone or otherwise abuse the system. Two things could happen after an anti-cache comes into existance. One, cachers with better people skills could work to convince the managers to allow caches. Two, serve as a warning to not to attempt to put a cache there.

 

As it stands now, when a cache is archived due to lack of permission from a manager, we have no way of knowing.

 

I think it a cool idea and could be retroactive for those caches that would fit into the category. Simply add a type of "archived" tag.

 

CR

 

[+Rusty O Junk]

I don't see the anti cache idea working but how about a new section to website. Lets call it "inappropriate caching areas" or something along them lines. Each entry would give the name of the park/organization, coordinates and why not appropriate. I'd put a button on the main page right under "Hide and Seek". I'd also put a link on the state search page and everyone's "my geocache page". Each of the last two should give a list of entries for the users home state.

[+Marky]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Leprechauns:

Success on an anti-cache would be to log a "not found", correct? Well, I do not want the legitimacy of my "not-founds" on traditional caches to be tainted by other people who pad their not-found counts by doing anti-caches.

 

Anti-caches are really a different game. They should have their own separate section on the site.

---

Lep, thanks for starting my day off with a chuckle!

 

--Marky

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

[+Marky]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusty O Junk:

I don't see the anti cache idea working but how about a new section to website. Lets call it "inappropriate caching areas" or something along them lines. Each entry would give the name of the park/organization, coordinates and why not appropriate. I'd put a button on the main page right under "Hide and Seek". I'd also put a link on the state search page and everyone's "my geocache page". Each of the last two should give a list of entries for the users home state.

---

If there was a database built up of regions that were cache unfriendly, the cache submission software could bounce submissions automatically if you fell into one of those regions, not wasting the time of the approvers.

 

--Marky

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

[+Sissy-n-CR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusty O Junk:

I don't see the anti cache idea working...

---

 

I think it could work. Here's just one way it could. Someone placed a cache that requires it to be archived due to placement issues. Someone else comes along and tries to place a cache near there. The system sees the cache is near an anti-cache and flags it. The user sees his cache is near a prohibited cache placement area and is given a link to the archived cache and is asked to explain why the new cache should be approved. If he can't justify why his cache should approved while the other one is archived, the cache is not approved.

 

This will alert the cacher right off the bat that his cache might not be a good idea, but gives the opportunity to explain himself. For instance, his cache is outside the prohibited area or he was able to arrange permission with the land manager.

 

This could take some of the onus off the approvers and put it where it belongs, on the placer.

 

That's just one way it could work.

 

CR

 

[+Sissy-n-CR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marky:

...bounce submissions automatically..."

---

 

I'd prefer a way to explain why your cache should be allowed. If the explaination is not good enough for the approver, then the approver needs not go any further than that. But at least give the placer a chance to explain why he thinks his could fly.

 

CR

 

[+Rusty O Junk]

quote:

---

the cache submission software could bounce submissions automatically if you fell into one of those regions, not wasting the time of the approvers.

---

Exactly, and with the bounce message it could give a link to the listing in the database that bounced it. Along with that there would also have to be a means to resubmit bypassing the auto screening. Thereby if the placer managed to gain permission or circumvent what ever the problem was he/she can reach the approvers.

 

quote:

---

Here's just one way it could. Someone placed a cache that requires it to be archived due to placement issues. Someone else comes along and tries to place a cache near there. The system sees the cache is near an anti-cache and flags it.

---

CR - I think we are both talking about the same thin just calling it by different names. Comparing proximity to known cache unfriendly coordinates is one way but the system will also need to flag key words or park names such as our friends at "Deer Valley Rock Art Center".

[+Sissy-n-CR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusty O Junk:

CR - I think we are both talking about the same thin just calling it by different names.

---

 

I concur. The best solution would be to have the boundries of the prohibited area, but that's a lot of work. Plus, there would an issue of accuracy--what if the new cache is just outside the fence, but the boundries says it's inside? A simple proximity set up would probably be the easiest to set up. Send the user to the prohibited cache page to see if his cache falls under the same restrictions would probably suffice.

 

Searching for keywords is probably good, as well, but I'm not sure how that would be set up. Would the system have to search a large database of keywords? I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how much this would tax the system, or even if it would any more than looking for close proximity of other caches.

 

TPTB are some pretty smart cookies and I'm sure if they want something like this, they'll be able to come up with a workable solution.

 

CR

 

[+Bloencustoms]

If a provision for logs to cache resistant areas was in place, cachers could share their experiences at such places, and let people know what to expect.

 

Don't even think about putting those muddy boots in my car.