Is anyone else a bit weary of locationless caches?

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

No, NO, Alan ... locationless caches, like 98.5% of the stuff on the site, are __ENTIRELY FREE__ for __EVERYONE__ ("dues paying customers" and cheapskates alike) to enjoy ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

We're not allowed to list a locationless cache as an MOC? That seems odd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

I don't know. Give it a try, and see what happens.

---

Thanks, but I'm not interested in giving it a try. I assumed that you had checked out your facts before making the above statemenet. (But then we all know what happens when we "assume".) Silly me!

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

No, NO, Alan ... locationless caches, like 98.5% of the stuff on the site, are __ENTIRELY FREE__ for __EVERYONE__ ("dues paying customers" and cheapskates alike) to enjoy ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

We're not allowed to list a locationless cache as an MOC? That seems odd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

I don't know. Give it a try, and see what happens.

---

Thanks, but I'm not interested in giving it a try. I assumed that you had checked out your facts before making the above statemenet. (But then we all know what happens when we "assume".) Silly me!

[+the england's]

I dont like them either....I just deleted my 2 I "found".

 

"Before beginning a hunt, it is wise to ask someone what you are looking for before you begin looking for it."

Pooh

[+Slytherin]

I don't mind locationless caches if they involve working out co-ordinates in whatever way needed and then going to that point guided by your GPS. That's geocaching for me regardless if there's a box at the end of the hunt. I've done Pair Of Quintuplets, Palindrome, etc. and enjoyed the mere action of tracking down the location that fits the numbers.

 

But as for the caches that just rely on coming across something like a yellow Jeep, finding one of the three million red/white barbers poles in the world, or happening to bump into the Weinermobile on it's travels, well if it didn't involve entering the co-ordiantes into your GPS and then going to the point, then that isn't geocaching to my mind.

 

Alex.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Thanks, but I'm not interested in giving it a try. I assumed that you had checked out your facts before making the above statemenet. _(But then we all know what happens when we "assume".)_ Silly me!

---

 

Nah, I "winged it." Just like some do with their spelling.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Thanks, but I'm not interested in giving it a try. I assumed that you had checked out your facts before making the above statemenet. _(But then we all know what happens when we "assume".)_ Silly me!

---

 

Nah, I "winged it." Just like some do with their spelling.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

Nah, I "winged it." Just like some do with their spelling.

---

 

Hey...I resemble that remark!

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

Nah, I "winged it." Just like some do with their spelling.

---

 

Hey...I resemble that remark!

[+Prime Suspect]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Web-ling:

The problem I'm having with most of the locationless caches is they're just plain unimaginative. Sort of like putting a regular cache in a ditch on the side of the interstate.

---

Does that mean I should abandon my plans for the I-635 Ditch Cache? I've spent weeks looking for just the right ditch. And I've designed a cache container that looks just like a discarded What-A-Burger bag.

 

[+Prime Suspect]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Web-ling:

The problem I'm having with most of the locationless caches is they're just plain unimaginative. Sort of like putting a regular cache in a ditch on the side of the interstate.

---

Does that mean I should abandon my plans for the I-635 Ditch Cache? I've spent weeks looking for just the right ditch. And I've designed a cache container that looks just like a discarded What-A-Burger bag.

 

[+WaldenRun]

We may yet long for the day when 'normal' caches were in the majority. As I have watched the 'recently logged caches' over the past month, the percentage logged against virtual/locationless is steadily rising. Despite their smaller numbers, these caches are grabbing an ever larger share of the action. Checking the recent activity of a certain Agency, only 8 of their last 25 were 'real' caches. Sadly, the comment about the 'American Way' rings true. I can only hope people will at least roll down the window before they take the picture. Nah, that would screw up the climate control. -WR

 

"Why worry when you can obsess?"

[+sbell111]

WaldenRun-

 

I think you're seeing a temporary spike in locationless caches because of the recent site changes. For once, it's easy to find locationless caches on the site. Therefore, people who like this type of cache (for whatever reason) are going to log several of them.

 

I have logged quite a few in the last week or two. This is due to several reasons. 1) They are new and different. 2) I happen to like scavenger hunts, so I tend to like this type of search. 3) Lately, in my area, there has been a dirge of unimaginative micros. 4) The weather has been a rainy mess. I don't enjoy trudging around in the woods in the rain. 5) I have been wirking about 60 hours per week. This has left less time for traditional hunts.

 

I know that for me, my locationless finds are really elevated right now. As my scheduling and attitude improves, it will swing back to 'standard' caching.

 

Like so many others have said, its night the type of cache, it's how interesting the hunt (or destination) is.

[Team Dragon]

I think they would slow down quite a bit if they were counted separately from the cache total.

 

65 location caches

4 locationless

 

My biggest beef with them is the lack of an ignore feature. Two people used coords near my house for locationless caches and since I won't log them, they're always front and center.

[+worldtraveler]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team Dragon:

My biggest beef with them is the lack of an ignore feature. Two people used coords near my house for locationless caches and since I won't log them, they're always front and center.

---

 

Simple solution to this particular annoyance: require all who create such caches to use the same set of remote “waypoints” when creating the cache page. Something like S 080° / W 130° ought to keep these caches off everyone's “closest caches” page. And those who want to search for this kind of cache could then quickly get a list of them by entering those coords on the search page.

 

Of course, my first preference is for the cache approvers to delete all so-called caches that do not start with a set of coords (given or calculated) to which a person must navigate. Anything lacking this basic criterion is, by definition, not a “geocache”.

 

Worldtraveler

[+Alan2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team Dragon:

 

My biggest beef with them is the lack of an ignore feature. Two people used coords near my house for locationless caches and since I won't log them, they're always front and center.

---

 

How's this: 1. Post them and just know you're got two less actual finds. We'll understand. or 2. Post them and delete two actual standard finds you've made so your count is accurate. When they finally get around to deleting them, you can reverse the actual finds if you want.

Alan

[+sbell111]

Reading this thread again, I've realized two things.

 

First, there are apparently still a number of locationless caches intermingled with the standard caches. These should all be transitioned to 'locationless' so they don't clutter a search for 'standard' caches. A quick email to the cache owner for these may result in the transition. Once this is done, they won't clutter anyone's search for 'standard' caches. Obviously, new locationless caches should not be approved if they are not flagged as 'locationless'.

 

Second, it appears that more people than I thought are interested in their find counts. As I recall previous polls on this subject, the vast majority of players could care less about their counts. I guess the polls were flawed.

 

Have fun!

[+Navdog]

Welcome to Geotravel.com

 

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be."

-Douglas Adams

[+The GeoGadgets Team]

...arguement, IMHO.

 

I understand if they show up on one's radar when checking for new caches in one's area. The super-simple ones I agree are pretty bad. What is worse is: have you noticed how many folks who place/generate locationless caches also log them as finds for themselves? That is even more ridiculous... place a cache so you can log it. Or folks who log more than one time for that same cache ("...oh, and look, we found ANOTHER mural!"). Other than the mural cache, I find it amusing that even on these simpler caches, many people still can't read the rules or follow instructions.

 

There are many redeeming qualities for the better locationless caches, though (IMHO).

Some are for historical areas/markers that would be impossible to place any kind of cache, except maybe a virtual, and most of those you can look up on the internet to get the answers for and post it as a find. Those are still great places to get others to go. I have always found it interesting to learn that folks that have lived in an area for all or most of their lives know very little about that area's history. No, Geocaching isn't History 101, but part of GCing is bringing folks to places they wouldn't normally go - so these apply.

 

Another thing I like about loctionless caches is that I can learn more about the areas in which other geocachers live and THEIR history by reading the logs. I love reading the site logs, this is no different. I especially enjoy looking at the pictures. It is like virtual traveling for me. You might find that weak, and I suppose it makes me a voyeur... so be it.

 

And finally, while looking over the locationless caches, I discovered quite a few interesting points about my own area that I didn't know... like that a little town such as where I live has TWO SuperFund clean-up sites! Yikes! One very close to my home. The real estate agent never told me about THAT!

 

Again it should be said, if you don't like them, don't do them. Don't be a Nazi and say that they don't meet YOUR criteria for a GC and so they don't belong. Those who complain habitually don't lend any credence to their perspective. I hate it when people drive through my beautiful area and stop for lunch and during that time flood the local list with drive-up, drive-off virtuals that take little or no ability or imagination other than to plug in coordinates.

 

If you get rid of locationless, ditch virtuals and I don't think that, with the NFS and State and National Parks in prime caching areas, that that will happen anytime soon.

 

All caches have some validity. If they get too lame, that decision needs to be made in the approval stage.

----------

Lori aka: RedwoodRed

KF6VFI

"I don't get lost, I investigate alternative destinations."

GeoGadgets Team Website

Comics, Video Games and Movie Fansite

[Zuckerruebensirup]

I'd still like to see a rating system on caches. Maybe if people get some statistical feeback on how great or how lame their caches are (whether physical, virtual, or locationless), they'll start putting in more effort into make them interesting.

 

Personally, I've seen some fun and/or creative locationless caches, and even have a couple of my watch list. (For example, the Hometown one...I enjoy putting faces to names, and seeing where people are from. No, you don't need a GPSr to find your hometown...but as a community, it's nice to see who else is out there.) I've also seen many that are just plain boring. (But the same is true for virtual and traditional caches, too.) However, what's boring to me may be fun for others. Who am I to judge?

 

Voting on the other hand, might be constructive. It gives people a sense of what the rest of the group enjoys or doesn't.)

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

[+ClayJar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Navdog:

Welcome to Geotravel.com

---

Two points if any of the rest of us old-hat cachers can name who first foretold the amazingly fantastic wonders of geotravel.com...

[+ClayJar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Navdog:

Welcome to Geotravel.com

---

Two points if any of the rest of us old-hat cachers can name who first foretold the amazingly fantastic wonders of geotravel.com...

[+Web-ling]

Besides the fact that a large number of these caches are unimaginative and boring, the other two beefs I have with locationless caches are:

 

1. They still show up on the Nearest Geocache(s) page, even though they have their own page, and

 

2. They still require a country and state when they are created.

 

I changed the coordinates on mine to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, just because I was tired of seeing them on my Nearest Geocache(s) page. And since they're locationless, shouldn't there be an option of putting "Locationless" as the country name, or else the ability to not put in anything as the country?

 

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Web-ling:

 

beefs I have with locationless caches:

 

They still show up on the Nearest Geocache(s) page, even though they have their own page

---

I'll bet that if you send a polite e-mail to the owners, most of them would happily change the coordinates to an out of the way place.

 

(But it would be nice if the system automatically assigned a certain pre-designated 'locationless' coordinates to all these caches when they first get created.)

[+Seth!]

I, too, am getting weary of locationless geocaches. But I'm also weary of lame physical geocaches. I've logged a couple of "locationless" geocaches, but they were interesting and required some work.

 

I would not lump Virtual Geocaches in with Locationless geocaches (see EraSeek's post about the order of operations). But some VC's are also lame. The "if you don't like them, don't hunt them" works up to a point. But it's not an excuse for posting just any old thing.

 

I think that the general rule for any geocache should be Put Some Thought Into It. If it's a locationless, just make sure it's a unique and quality idea. If you aren't sure, e-mail some other geocachers (even ones you don't know) and ask them what they think. Most of us will give you an honest answer! []

 

Seth!

[+Seth!]

I, too, am getting weary of locationless geocaches. But I'm also weary of lame physical geocaches. I've logged a couple of "locationless" geocaches, but they were interesting and required some work.

 

I would not lump Virtual Geocaches in with Locationless geocaches (see EraSeek's post about the order of operations). But some VC's are also lame. The "if you don't like them, don't hunt them" works up to a point. But it's not an excuse for posting just any old thing.

 

I think that the general rule for any geocache should be Put Some Thought Into It. If it's a locationless, just make sure it's a unique and quality idea. If you aren't sure, e-mail some other geocachers (even ones you don't know) and ask them what they think. Most of us will give you an honest answer! []

 

Seth!

[+the england's]

...takes the geo out of geocaching

...takes the caching out of geocaching

 

...all your left with is fairycaching.....

 

"Before beginning a hunt, it is wise to ask someone what you are looking for before you begin looking for it." Pooh

[skydiver]

Overall, I'm against locationless caches, but have seen some that were fairly creative, imaginative, and difficult to log. (Refuse to log even those though).

 

Overall, I'm wishy-washy on virtual caches, since more of them seem to provide similar difficulty as a real geocache. They should be held up to a tougher standard of creativity, though.

 

Overall, I'm all in favor of real geocaches, but have seen (and found) some that were pretty darn unimaginative, too.

 

So, what I'd love to see is a system where finders can rate how much fun that had hunting the cache, and how difficult they felt it actually was. On top of that, I'd love to see a system where, if enough Charter Members give a poor rating on a cache, it get's automatically archived. Seems that would go a long way toward enforcing creative, fun, caches, as well as encourage some of the freeloaders to become Charters.

 

OR, what do people think of a rule that states that a cache posted by a non-charter member, must be logged and "approved" by a Charter, before it's available to the general public? But now I'm way off topic and should be in the "enhancement suggestions" forum.

[+WaldenRun]

The only difference between a Charter and non-Charter member is the ability and/or desire to fork over the $. Being a Charter member doesn't really lend any more credibility to a cacher. We alreay have an 'Approval Squad'. We fought WW II to escape domination by Nazis, so I would hate to see caches denied approval because they did not meet the standards of some Super-cacher race.

 

"Why worry when you can obsess?"

[Zuckerruebensirup]

I like the idea of finders rating caches, but I don't think those ratings should cause anything to be automatically archived. Hopefully, just the numbers themselves would be learning tools to the cache owner, and other potential cache placers about what people enjoy and what they don't.

 

As for Charter Member votes counting for more than standard registered users, I don't think there should be a difference (except for with MOC's where obviously only Charter Members could vote, anyway).

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

[skydiver]

quote:

---

Originally posted by WaldenRun:

Being a Charter member doesn't really lend any more credibility to a cacher. so I would hate to see caches denied approval because they did not meet the standards of some Super-cacher race.

 

---

 

If someone has the money to pay for even a basic GPSr and the gas to drive around looking for geocaches, I highly doubt they're so poor they can't afford the $30 a year to be a Charter Member here. 99.9% (I'm sure I'm being consertive) of the participants here could at least afford the $3 for a month of membership in order to vote on a cache they felt particularly strong about. That hardly makes them a race of Super-cachers.

However, if someone cares enough about this site, and this sport, to help support it financially, then that should come with the privilege of having at least a little more say in what happens here. Being a Charter Member lends a lot of credibility to a cacher imho.

 

[This message was edited by skydiver on May 07, 2002 at 02:00 PM.]

[+Web-ling]

I don't like the idea of ratings. There are some who would rate every virtual (locationless or not) with the lowest rating simply because they don't like virtual caches.

 

If the ratings were only visible to the OWNER of the cache, I suppose it would be a good tool to improve the quality of caches.

 

What I DON'T want to see is the mass low rating of a particular type of cache by cachers who have personal bias against that type of cache. It would be absurd to have all virtual caches in an area downgraded simply because they are virtual, and to have those ratings visible for everyone to see. Or to have a bunch of people give low ratings to every cache a particular cacher has hidden, simply because they don't like the person.

 

If such a rating system were implemented, logging a FIND for the cache would certainly have to be a requirement for rating it. This would not eliminate mass biased ratings, but would restrict them a bit. Also, if the FIND were deleted, the vote on the rating would have to be deleted as well.

 

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Web-ling:

 

If such a rating system were implemented, logging a FIND for the cache would certainly have to be a requirement for rating it.

---

Of course, for how could a person fairly rate a cache that they hadn't found?

 

Also, in my opinion, it shouldn't show just the average rating at the top of the cache page, but also show the individual ratings in each finder's entry. This would do two things:

 

1) If a person were to unfairly cast votes based on grudges, it would become obvious to everyone, and

 

2) We'd all begin to get a feel for whose opinions and ratings were similiar to our own. If a particular person had found and rated a cache before us, we'd have a good idea of whether we would enjoy it, as well.

[skydiver]

I completely agree with Zuckerruebensirup on all points.

 

Two paths diverged in a wood, and my... my GPSr pointed dead center between them.

[+mtn-man]

I see the new breed of locationless caches and just keep saying to myself "You gotta' be kidding me!". Just drive around and theres a cache.

 

I suggested guidelines for locationless caches in another forum and will repost them here.

quote:

---

by yours truly:

I wish that a locationless cache could be where the coordinates are found on the internet and you provide a photo of the thing to prove you found it(like the benchmark cache) or verified by plugging the coordinates into MapQuest or TopoZone and seeing that the object is in fact there (like the covered bridge cache). That's just me, and those are the rules I have played by so far, but that is just me. Locationless caches have gone far beyond that now and it would appear too late to reel them in. I am waiting for the "Fire Hydrant Locationless Cache". My dog the puppymonster could log that one as a find!!

---

I do not think it is too late to reel them in really and truly, and I wish that it could be done soon.

 

[+mtn-man]

I see the new breed of locationless caches and just keep saying to myself "You gotta' be kidding me!". Just drive around and theres a cache.

 

I suggested guidelines for locationless caches in another forum and will repost them here.

quote:

---

by yours truly:

I wish that a locationless cache could be where the coordinates are found on the internet and you provide a photo of the thing to prove you found it(like the benchmark cache) or verified by plugging the coordinates into MapQuest or TopoZone and seeing that the object is in fact there (like the covered bridge cache). That's just me, and those are the rules I have played by so far, but that is just me. Locationless caches have gone far beyond that now and it would appear too late to reel them in. I am waiting for the "Fire Hydrant Locationless Cache". My dog the puppymonster could log that one as a find!!

---

I do not think it is too late to reel them in really and truly, and I wish that it could be done soon.