Jump to content

Need some feedback on a locationless


Team Gizmo

Recommended Posts

Posted

The admins have denied this locationless cache.

 

They said that there are enough train related ones and part of this one could include a locomotive that is mobile(and some that are in museums). They said that you cannot have mobile objects as a locationless cache but there are at least 2 other locationless caches that include mobile objects.

 

What does everyone think?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=43997

 

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

Team Gizmo

 

"Honk if your horn is broken!"

Posted

Here is the basic idea. This locomotive was the largest one ever built.

 

For this locationless cache you must provide a picture of a certain type of diesel locomotive. There are 13 of these locomotives left. One that is currently in service by Union Pacific and the rest are in museums & parks around the country. To get credit for this cache, you must provide the coordinates and a picture, including your GPSr, of one of these locomotives. A locomotive may be logged more than once. I have included a graphic of this huge locomotive for reference.

 

Can you get a picture of the one that is currently in service? It's number is 6936.

 

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

Team Gizmo

 

"Honk if your horn is broken!"

Posted

icon_rolleyes.gif Locationless icon_rolleyes.gif - but I'll take a stab. I think I see the problem. First, there's one in service - which means it's on the move. Moving=bad according to admins.

 

I'll make another guess as to the other reason I think they're balking. The limited number of these things. If you only allow the people to log the 13 trains once, 13 logs and you're done. Then archive the cache. Not great, IMHO.

 

What about an alternative: Why not set up a string of related virtual caches at these sites since there are so few? Or better yet. Elicit the help of local cachers and set up TRADITIONAL caches near each location with a Train theme for the contents, then interlink the caches on their detail pages.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Posted

I am allowing each loco to be logged more than once...and there are at least 3 other locationless caches that are mobile. One where you log the Wienermobile, one where you log the Hershey KissMobile and one where you log a yellow jeep. By the way, there are 13 Wienermobiles and they are ALL mobile.

 

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

Team Gizmo

 

"Honk if your horn is broken!"

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Team Gizmo:

I am allowing each loco to be logged more than once...and there are at least 3 other locationless caches that are mobile. One where you log the Wienermobile, one where you log the Hershey KissMobile and one where you log a yellow jeep. By the way, there are 13 Wienermobiles and they are ALL mobile.

 

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

Team Gizmo

 

"Honk if your horn is broken!"


 

My answer is a little jaded since I really don't like locationless caches.

 

The admins changed the rules for locationless caches some time ago, and those caches that were approved before the change were allowed to remain.

 

I agree with some of the others though, I would much rather find them as a series of virtual caches instead of a locationless.

 

Scott

Posted

Under the current locationless rules this wont be approved because the guidelines say:

"Locationless caches must be semi-permanent to permanent. For example, nothing that is mobile can be a locationless cache. Examples (nonexclusive) are cars, buses, helicopters, boats, etc. A local carnival cache is another example of a cache that would not be approved. If I mark coordinates at a location it should be there tomorrow." You can read them here.

 

So if you kick the one mobile one out you might have a better chance of getting it approved. But then you have the problem that generally you can only log a spot once on a locationless(ie. one finder per person per spot). That leaves this as a locationless as cache that can only be found by 13 people, very temporary, and theres no way the admins will go for that.

If you want more than on person to be able to claim a find to each spot maybe you could set up another type of cache. For those of the 13 that are in museums a tranditional is out. That leaves a virtual, maybe sumit each engine as a virtual? Of course then you you have up to 13 virtuals to set up and maintain... icon_rolleyes.gif

 

quote:
Originally posted by Team Gizmo:

Here is the basic idea...

There are 13 of these locomotives left. One that is currently in service by Union Pacific and the rest are in museums... for this cache, you must provide the coordinates and a picture, including your GPSr, of one of these locomotives.


 

22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Posted

The idea of this one was to get some good pics of these historic loco's...and maybe even the one in action. I think I will pick one in a museum and set it up a as a virtual. Wonder what problems there will be with that? icon_rolleyes.gif

 

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

Team Gizmo

 

"Honk if your horn is broken!"

Posted

Probly None, because its inside theres no way "good" way to hide an actual cache there. icon_wink.gif

 

If really want to get a pic of one of these trains and know where they're at, go find one of Markwell's Photographer's caches and direct it to one of them. icon_cool.gif

 

quote:
Originally posted by Team Gizmo:

The idea of this one was to get some good pics of these historic loco's...and maybe even the one in action. I think I will pick one in a museum and set it up a as a virtual. Wonder what problems there will be with that? icon_rolleyes.gif

 

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

Team Gizmo

 

"Honk if your horn is broken!"


 

22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

 

[This message was edited by Welch on November 25, 2002 at 03:59 PM.]

Posted

Have the admins told you that they will not approve it because there are so few? I don't know that that will necessarily be a problem. If you exclude the train that is in service, perhaps they will approve your request.

 

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

Posted

Here is the cache if approved. It should fit the rules now.

 

The DDA40X is the largest locomotive ever built. The coordinates listed are for the train yard in Tucson, Arizona. There is not a DDA40X at this location.

 

For this virtual cache you must provide a picture of a certain type of diesel locomotive. The Union Pacific DDA40X. There are 13 of the original 47 locomotives left. Twelve of them are in museums & parks around the country. Part of the challenge of this cache is to figure out where these locomotives are on display. To get credit for this cache, you must provide the coordinates, the city/state location and a picture, including your GPSr, of one of these locomotives. Since there are so few, a locomotive may be logged more than once. I have included a graphic of this huge locomotive for reference.

 

Happy Hunting!

 

____________________________________________________________________

 

A little history of this locomotive:

 

In 1969 Union Pacific purchased the very largest and most powerful diesel ever built, the DDA40X, with 6600 HP provided by two diesel engines mounted on one frame.

 

These 270 ton, 98 foot long behemoths were built by the Electro-Motive Division of General Motors Corp. (EMD) and were named "Centennial". In all, 47 units were purchased (numbered 6900-6946) beginning in May of 1969 with deliveries continuing through 1971. They were numbered using the "6900" series to mark the '69 dates.

 

Today 13 of these double diesel locomotives survive and can be visited. One unit #6936 has recently had a major overhaul and is still owned and regularly operated by the UPRR.

 

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

Team Gizmo

 

"Honk if your horn is broken!"

Posted

A rose by any other name is still a rose. Calling a locationless cache a virtual doesn't change the fact it's still a locationless cache. How can you make a virtual of a train at a certain place when the train isn't even there? Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting something here.

 

I think your earlier idea of making ONE of these locomotives into a virtual would work well. Is there one near you?

 

And just for the record, I am pro-micro, pro-multi, pro-traditional, virtual neutral (I'll find one but probably will never submit one), and anti-locationless.

 

Visit the Mississippi Geocaching Forum at

http://pub98.ezboard.com/bgeocachingms

Posted

I have been looking at other caches that have been approved. There is a virtual cache to post a clock on a pedestal. You cannot log the same clock more than once. Using your logic, this wouldn't be a virtual either, but it was approved that way. The idea behind this cache was to challenge the finder to figure out where one (or more) of these locomotive are on display and then log a picture of it. I don't really care if it's listed as a virtual or a locationless. I was trying to meet the "guidelines" to get it listed. I have emailed Jeremy on this one and I will take whatever he decides as the final answer. I thought it would be fun to have folks looking for the largest locomotive ever built. Maybe not.

 

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

Team Gizmo

 

"Honk if your horn is broken!"

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Team Gizmo:

I have been looking at other caches that have been approved. There is a virtual cache to post a clock on a pedestal. You cannot log the same clock more than once. Using your logic, this wouldn't be a virtual either...


Correct, that one isnt a virtual either. It should probly be changed to a locationless, why it has not already been done, i dont know. But that doesnt matter.

What matters is if you can get this train locationless approved by calling it a virtual. I don't think it will happen.

 

22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Posted

Also remember that using previously approved caches is not necessarily going to get your cache approved. Many of the locationless caches were "Grandfathered" in - given an exclusion because they already existed, but no further caches of the nature will be allowed. A fine example would be the Yellow Jeep Locationless cache. It's mobile, and very common. This cache would not be approved now, but since it was previously approved, it still exists.

 

A virtual cache guides you to ONE SPECIFIC LOCATION based on a given set of coordinates. A locationless cache doesn't have one specific location, but the possibility of many based on where the finder meets the requirements.

 

So, get the coordinates for the 12 stationary engines and set up a virtual cache at each (with some pre-requisit to make sure they've been there - photo or some other information), or as I suggested before, have a local cacher place a train themed cache nearby and link it to the 11 others that would do the same for you. icon_wink.gif

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Posted

I believe this is the cache you are referring to:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=19145

 

It's a locationless. If you'll look on the cache page, there are no coordinates. Practically all locationless caches are by nature also virtuals. (No container, log book, etc.) However, few virtuals are also locationless.

 

Personally, the concept of a locationless cache that only has 12 possibilities would be much more of an adventure than many that we already have. For instance, how many new jeeps do you see that AREN'T yellow? icon_razz.gif But I think the administrators felt that locationless submissions could get overwhelming in a hurry if severe limitations weren't placed.

 

Visit the Mississippi Geocaching Forum at

http://pub98.ezboard.com/bgeocachingms

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

Wow - I missed that Jeremy removed the coordinates from the locationless caches. Cool. Finally starting to make sense. Too bad there's still no way to view all of the locations for a particular locationless cache on one simplified map...


Yea, but all those people with yellow jeeps and such give you a funny look whenever you ask if they're going to have tracking devices attached to their property, so some other people they dont know can track them online icon_wink.gif

 

22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Posted

I don't see a problem with the revised version of the cache description. It seems to meet the requirements.

 

For the record, I'm more-or-less pro-locationless, but losing interest fast.

 

25021_1200.gif

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Team Gizmo:

Here is the cache if approved. It should fit the rules now...


 

In my opinion, your cache now fits the rules for locationless caches.

 

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

Posted

Well, Erik finally posted it. The only thing that he changed was that each loco can only be logged one time and then if someone else wants to log it, it has to be a note only.

 

"The usual locationless cache rules apply - each locomotive can be logged only once and only one log per geocacher - though others are welcome to visit those already found and log a "note"."

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=44440

 

I did not find that in the guidelines and didn't see anything about "usual locationless cache rules". I would have liked to be able to have each loco logged more than once. Oh well, at least it got posted. You know if everyone hates locationless that much, maybe Jeremy should just do away with all of them. I enjoy them, but admittedly I do like regular caches more.

 

Thanks for all your feedback and happy caching!

 

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

Team Gizmo

 

"Honk if your horn is broken!"

 

[This message was edited by Team Gizmo on November 27, 2002 at 07:51 AM.]

Posted

I'm glad that it got approved. It sounds like fun. I only wish I was going out west soon so I could find one of them.

 

I also enjoy locationless caches, although (like you) I like standard caches better. I enjoy locationless for a few reasons:

  • They make me do a little research to find an item that hasn't yet been logged
  • They make me be better aware of my surroundings so I will notice if I happen upon a loggable item in the course of my daily activities
  • They give me somethng to do if there is no available local caches.

 

Cathy actually prefers the locationless ones. She has yet to see the point in following an arrow through the woods. Oh, well.

 

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

Posted

Perhaps you are missing one of the points in your original post. "They said that there are enough train related ones..." Maybe this has something to do with it. Last time I looked there was a "find a caboose" cache, a "find an engine" cache, and who knows what else. At some point the admins need to say enough is enough before we get to the point where you take pictures of everything you see then come home to find the locationless cache that it fits. And I say this as the owner of a now archived locationless cache, "Don't Know Much About History" (GC402F).

 

Even the pro-locationless faction must admit that there are some really crappy locationless caches out there. I applaud the approval crew's high standards for new locationless caches and think they could stand to be even more strict. The locationless boom is just like the dot com boom. Lots of excited people making new companies, many of which were of questionable quality. The dot-coms crashed, taking out the weak companies and leaving only the strong. The same thing should happen to locationless caches. Weed some of them out and leave only the best. New caches should only be approved if they meet strict standards.

 

rdw

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by rdw:

Perhaps you are missing one of the points in your original post. "They said that there are enough train related ones..." Maybe this has something to do with it. ...


 

I guess you missed that this cache has been approved.

 

I certainly agree that a locationless should not be approved if it duplicates items loggable on another locationless. This is not the case in this example. As I recall, the previous locomotive engine cache(s) searched for steam engines. A centennial engine is not a steam engine.

 

I don't see how the fact that the cache is train-related and so are other caches has any bearing on whether it should be approved.

 

I applaud the admins on their decisions in this case. This includes the reaoning for initial denial and the decision to approve once corrections were made.

 

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

I guess you missed that this cache has been approved.


 

No, I caught that. Should it have been approved though??

 

rdw

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...
×
×
  • Create New...