New Requirements/Guidelines for Cache Listings

[iryshe]

In an attempt to clarify the listing policies on the site, the listing approvers and myself have put together a document that should (hopefully) clear up many questions folks have about caches that aren't approved on the site.

 

It has been added to the guide for hiding a cache as well as the "report a cache" page. You can find the new document on the web site.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+seneca]

Way to go Jeremy. This has been a long time coming and will really help clear up a lot of problems and concerns. I think your guidelines are well thought out and appear flexible enough to keep the true spirit of Geocaching alive. Well done.

 

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!)

[+sbell111]

Thanks!

[+erik88l-r]

I think this will make everybody's life easier by cutting down on misunderstandings and needless effort.

[+CT Trampers]

Are you saying that there will be no commercial caches approved, or that they will approved if deemed acceptable?

 

Here's an idea for a cache that we would like to place. (Apologies to those who have already read this in the commercial cache thread.)

 

We would like to place a multi cache. One would have to visit two caches in order to obtain the coordinates of the final cache. (one half of the coordinates will be in each of the first two caches)

 

We would like to place one of the first two caches in a local donut shop. (we have permission from the owner) It would be a note placed on a "cork board" (where people might put business cards, advertise babysitting services, pets for sale, etc) inside the shop. The note would have those little "tear-off" sheets with the coordinates on them. No need to ask the employees anything, no purchase is required or expected. I do not have any personal interest in the shop except that I go there sometimes. Would this be an acceptable cache?

[+GeoCrickets]

I think there should be one other rule. take this cache You can only log one. If you live in

California like I do, once it is logged everyone else is locked out. I think if you want to post a

locationless cache you should be able to post the same item but maybe with a different

picture..

 

What do you think.

 

[This message was edited by GeoCrickets on June 06, 2002 at 02:57 AM.]

[+SylvrStorm]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CT Trampers:

 

No need to ask the employees anything, no purchase is required or expected. I do not have any personal interest in the shop except that I go there sometimes.

---

 

I personally have no problem with this sort of cache, since there's no admission fee or requirement to buy anything. However, I can see how it could easily get out of hand. Even if you don't *have* to buy anything, the shop owner could be looking at this as increasing foot traffic. That might not be the case this time, but I could see people setting up caches like this with that express purpose in mind. Get more people walking past junior's lemonade stand, and sales will increase. It's something to keep in mind.

 

SylvrStorm

[+SylvrStorm]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeoCrickets:

 

You can only log one. If you live in

California like I do, once it is logged everyone else is locked out.

---

 

I'm new to all this, and still sorting out my definitions, but wouldn't that situation essentially mean you start with a locationless cache, then want to turn one particular location from it into a virtual cache? I don't think there's any rule against that, as long as the particular location qualifies. You'd just need to set up a new cache for it. After that, anyone could log the new virtual cache.

 

Would that work?

[+sbell111]

Geocrickets-

 

I kinda like the idea of only one log per item for locationless caches. To me, part of what makes locationless caches interesting is hurrying to log before the next cacher. For most of the locationless caches, failing to be first logger doesn't prohibit me from logging a find. It just ups the difficulty level a bit because I have to find another kugel ball or steam engine.

 

Without this requirement, I believe locationless caches would be less interesting and more lame.

[+ClayJar]

Jeremy, are you going to include this in the weekly cache notification e-mail? I was talking to someone this evening who doesn't read the forums, and he noted that he wouldn't have heard otherwise.

 

I assume you've already thought of it, but just to be sure, I figured I'd make a little note here.

[+georgeandmary]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeoCrickets:

I think there should be one other rule. take this cache You can only log one. If you live in

California like I do, once it is logged everyone else is locked out. I think if you want to post a

locationless cache you should be able to post the same item but maybe with a different

picture..

 

What do you think.

---

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=20321

 

I'm sure you're talking about this cache.... A few weeks ago I changed my two locationless caches so that I accept repeats of the same find. That way people can use the coordinates given by other finders, to find the same item for themselves.

 

I think it should be listed as a requirement for all locationless caches.

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

[+Web-ling]

What about multi-locational virtual caches like A Cache of Palindromes or my A Pair of Quintuplets , where the coordinates are first mathematically derived, then the cacher goes to those coordinates? Should these be considered virtual or locationless?

 

[Jeremy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Web-ling:

What about multi-locational virtual caches like http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=8235 or my http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=13198, where the coordinates are first mathematically derived, then the cacher goes to those coordinates? Should these be considered virtual or locationless?

---

 

Locationless. However, if a new mathematical formula cache were to be reported, I doubt it would be listed, given the new guidelines.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+Gloom]

quote:

---

#6 of the virtual cache:

Understand that although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries. You should also return to the web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Virtual caches posted and "abandoned" will be archived by the site.

---

 

First when you say 'return to the web site' do you mean log in to geocaching.com in general, or visiting the virtual cache page itself. The reason I ask is I have a very hard virtual cache that often goes months between being hit. In fact right now it's at 65 days. While I don't concider this abandoned, I don't really see a reason to visit the cache page if no one has made a log on it (although I do every so often check the audit trail to see if anyone is looking at it). Further more, I get an email notifying me if anyone does make a log or note on the cache negating any reason for me to go to the page to see what's going on.

 

I do realize that this is probably the only way you can keep track of owners of virtual caches, but it seems like overkill to me.

 

Just my two cents,

Gloom

 

----

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

[Jeremy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClayJar:

Jeremy, are you going to include this in the weekly cache notification e-mail?

---

 

I'll add it to the weekly notification email, along with the benchmark intro.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[Jeremy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gloom:

 

First when you say 'return to the web site' do you mean log in to geocaching.com in general, or visiting the virtual cache page itself?

---

 

Just visit the web site so we're aware you are still active in some fashion. The last login date would be used to indicate whether you are still around. It will probably be reactive instead of proactive for archiving virtual caches.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+Gloom]

That clears up my question.

 

----

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

[+GeoCrickets]

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgeandmary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeoCrickets:

I think there should be one other rule. take this cache You can only log one. If you live in

California like I do, once it is logged everyone else is locked out. I think if you want to post a

locationless cache you should be able to post the same item but maybe with a different

picture..

 

What do you think.

---

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=20321

 

I'm sure you're talking about this cache.... A few weeks ago I changed my two locationless caches so that I accept repeats of the same find. That way people can use the coordinates given by other finders, to find the same item for themselves.

 

I think it should be listed as a requirement for all locationless caches.

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

---

 

That is the one I was talking about. I forgot to put in the URL.

[+Web-ling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

However, if a new mathematical formula cache were to be reported, I doubt it would be listed, given the new guidelines.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

---

 

Curious. "Locationless" caches WITH coords will probably NOT be approved, but those WITHOUT coords MIGHT. Does anyone else find this odd? I thought the basis of geocaching was to have the coords first...

 

[+Allen_L]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Web-ling:

 

Curious. "Locationless" caches WITH coords will probably NOT be approved, but those WITHOUT coords MIGHT. Does anyone else find this odd? I thought the basis of geocaching was to have the coords first...

 

---

I for one like the "locationless" caches with math formulas to calculate a set of coords more than looking for something then recording where it was at. I liked figuring out the coords, looking on maps to find a set that appeared to reachable and hopefully interesting in itself, then actually going and seeing if they were reachable in the real world. Of course I enjoyed doing confluence hunts as well. If we can't have both, I would prefer these to be ones that stayed.

[+rdw]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Web-ling:

Curious. "Locationless" caches WITH coords will probably NOT be approved, but those WITHOUT coords MIGHT. Does anyone else find this odd? I thought the basis of geocaching was to have the coords first...

---

 

Makes sense to me. Most of the mathematical caches essentially produce random points. Of course, they are not actually random, but all possibilities have not been accounted for, and the place will probably be boring. How interesting is that? Usually no more interesting than American flags or manhole covers. If you want to search out psuedorandom points, try geodashing. Or just wander around. The overall aim of the rules is to keep caches interesting. IMHO not having coordinates but finding something interesting is much better than starting with coordinates and finding nothing.

 

rdw

[iryshe]

Locationless caches can be best defined as mini geocaching sites. With geocaching, we ask to hide a cache and post the coordinates. We start with nothing and end up with coordinates. Same goes with Locationless caches. Post a unique item to find and log with lat/lon.

 

Jeremy

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+rdw]

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgeandmary:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=20321

 

I'm sure you're talking about this cache.... A few weeks ago I changed my two locationless caches so that I accept repeats of the same find. That way people can use the coordinates given by other finders, to find the same item for themselves.

 

I think it should be listed as a requirement for all locationless caches.

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

---

 

Hold on a minute, it depends on the cache. Long ago but not so far away, I proposed a test for exclusivity. Essentially I said "If it would cause a race to log it, then exclusivity would be bad." For the state capitol cache, exclusivity is bad because it prevents other cachers from logging it. On the other hand is my Don't Know Much About History cache, which has thousands and thousands of potential find sites. Exclusivity does not hurt in this case. If someone beats you to a particular marker, there will likely be another one nearby. This prevents people from logging the same marker over and over again. A good thing.

 

Some caches should not be exclusive, some should be. It depends on the number of potential find sites. If exclusivity prevents other cachers in an area from logging a find on a cache, it should not be exclusive.

 

rdw

[+georgeandmary]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rdw:

 

Hold on a minute, it depends on the cache. Long ago but not so far away, I proposed a test for exclusivity. Essentially I said "If it would cause a race to log it, then exclusivity would be bad." For the state capitol cache, exclusivity is bad because it prevents other cachers from logging it. On the other hand is my Don't Know Much About History cache, which has thousands and thousands of potential find sites. Exclusivity does not hurt in this case. If someone beats you to a particular marker, there will likely be another one nearby. This prevents people from logging the same marker over and over again. A good thing.

 

rdw

---

 

I don't see how awful it would be to have other people go to the same historical marker/site. God forbid we intorduce people to a new place and give them credit for going there... wait isn't that what a virtual cache is in the first place? "Hey everyone, come check out this neat thing/place."

 

Is your intent to log every historical marker on earth? Or to get people out using the gps to find neat places?

 

The fact is, people are going to log the closest historical marker or the one they're near when they have a gps and a camera. That's what I did.

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

[+rdw]

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgeandmary:

 

I don't see how awful it would be to have other people go to the same historical marker/site. God forbid we intorduce people to a new place and give them credit for going there... wait isn't that what a virtual cache is in the first place? "Hey everyone, come check out this neat thing/place."

---

 

It isn't terrible for other people to go visit the same historical marker or site, but that doesn't mean they should get credit for it here. One of my original unstated hopes is that people would find something new and interesting near them and go visit. Even if that doesn't happen, we all get a history lesson that isn't in the books. It would get kinda pointless if we kept on getting the same history lesson.

 

quote:

---

Is your intent to log every historical marker on earth? Or to get people out using the gps to find neat places?

---

 

It is not my intent to get every historical marker, but I wouldn't mind if we did. Think how we would be enriched if we had read every historical marker there is. My point _is_ to get people out to find neat places. It seems to be working. Over 150 finds right now.

 

quote:

---

The fact is, people are going to log the closest historical marker or the one they're near when they have a gps and a camera. That's what I did.

 

george

 

---

 

If that's the way they want to do it, that's OK by me. You get out of it what you put into it.

 

rdw

[evilrooster]

The new rules make me mildly anxious about something I've been working on for a couple of months. It's a set of seven virtual caches that map out a piece of interesting local history. The coordinates for the seventh cache are made up of numbers on buildings, gravestones, etc. from the first six. Sort of like the Sherlock Holmes cache in London, but more geographically and thematically integrated. It should take 2-3 hours altogether, and cover about 3 miles of Edinburgh's Old Town.

 

So -

1. Would such a series of caches be acceptable?

2. How do I post the seventh cache? At 00 00.000/00 00.000? As a locationless one? It's not locationless; there's one and only one place to go to log it. I'm just not posting that location on the web.

3. What suggestions do you have for how to log the final cache? Email me to tell me what the object of the quest is? Or some other idea?

 

Thanks for any help/suggestions.

 

evilrooster

[+Gloom]

EvilRooster, we had a cacher in our area try something like that and it didn't get approved. He has a series of caches, and in his latest in the series he made it a multi-cache and somewhere along the line you find the answer to the 'bonus' cache which was a locationless type. The admins wouldn't approve it. I'd try to get a reply out of the admins to see if this would be acceptable before you do it.

 

Maybe if you made one large multicache out of it?

 

----

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

[mdmax371]

I'm curious about the national park thing, it seems to me that alot of caches are in the parks and one of the reasons I look for caches is to get a chance to visit these parks. If caches could no longer be hidden there I'm not sure I would keep looking.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

mdmax I don't think it's a problem with having virtual caches in national parks. After all we are simply sending people to visit the parks they own and without "litering".

 

I plan to visit some nice areas backpacking in wilderness areas this summer and will submit a virtual or two on each trip. After all it certainly stays within the "leave no trace" motto.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[+mtn-man]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gloom:

Maybe if you made one large multicache out of it?

---

Evilrooster, that is exactly what you would need to do. What you are describing IS a multi-cache. I have done multi-caches that have had 15 - 20 steps to complete the cache.

 

mdmax371, the caches in the National Parks are virtual caches. They are fine since, as Lazyboy and Mitey Mite says, there is no going off trail and damaging tender areas to worry parks officials. The physical cache box is what the NP's will not allow.

 

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

[mdmax371]

Not all the caches in National Parks are virtual caches, there are alot that are the normal caches. I cache with my ten year old daughter and she enjoys finding the normal caches, it would be disappointing to see all these caches banned. From what I've seen most of the normal caches are hidden in some type of park, if we no longer could hide them in parks or private lands were would you hide them?

[evilrooster]

Multicaches...can someone point me to a good example of one? I've been all over the FAQ looking for a clear definition of one.

 

The problem is that each of the points needs a bit of explanation about why it's significant to the overall story. If I do them all piled up into one cache, then the 5,000 character limit is going to gut the descriptions.

 

Or do I do the six virtual caches, and include the information for the seventh in each one?

 

I know it's a pain for the admins/volunteers to give one-to-one guidance, but I wonder if someone in authority could tell me how I can make this work? I think it would be a fun thing to have in Edinburgh, and I have done rather a lot of research on it...

 

Thanks

[+Gloom]

quote:

---

Originally posted by evilrooster:

Multicaches...can someone point me to a good example of one? I've been all over the FAQ looking for a clear definition of one.

---

 

A multicache is simply a cache that has multiple steps. An example would be where you go to the first coordinates and get the coords to the second step, maybe after finding a cache or solving a puzzle involving information found there. At the second coordinates you find the coords to the third and so on.

 

Regarding your cache, maybe you could still put them all in one cache, but link each step to another page (outside of geocaching.com) that contains the explaination of each step. In this case you would leave any instructions regarding the actual finding of the cache on the cache page, but for each step provide a link that explains the history/significance/etc of that particular place. That would get around the 5000 character limit, although it would be kind of a pain.

 

-Gloom

 

----

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

[+Renegade Knight]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeoCrickets:

I think there should be one other rule. take this http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=20321 You can only log one. If you live in

California like I do, once it is logged everyone else is locked out. I think if you want to post a

locationless cache you should be able to post the same item but maybe with a different

picture..

 

What do you think.

 

[This message was edited by GeoCrickets on June 06, 2002 at 02:57 AM.]

---

 

Actually I agree. At this time I dont' have a digital camera and all the good 'locationless' caches will be used up by a few locals who happen to have the right equipment. It should't be about who is first, it should be about, the quest.

[+Rusty & Libby]

quote:

---

Originally posted by evilrooster:

The new rules make me mildly anxious about something I've been working on for a couple of months. It's a set of seven virtual caches that map out a piece of interesting local history. The coordinates for the seventh cache are made up of numbers on buildings, gravestones, etc. from the first six. Sort of like the Sherlock Holmes cache in London, but more geographically and thematically integrated. It should take 2-3 hours altogether, and cover about 3 miles of Edinburgh's Old Town.

 

So -

1. Would such a series of caches be acceptable?

2. How do I post the seventh cache? At 00 00.000/00 00.000? As a locationless one? It's not locationless; there's one and only one place to go to log it. I'm just not posting that location on the web.

3. What suggestions do you have for how to log the final cache? Email me to tell me what the object of the quest is? Or some other idea?

 

Thanks for any help/suggestions.

 

evilrooster

---

 

I would post the final cache as a multicache with the posted coordinates being a suggested parking location. The description would detail the other caches you had to find first to get the necessary info for completing the last one. In most cases just giving away the parking area will not give away the cache.

 

Rusty...

 

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

[+Bear and Ting]

I understand and agree with a cache being non-commercial, non-religious, non-political and I applaud that.

 

However, what about TB guidelines? Do they apply here as well? I guess I ask because I launched "The Great Candiate" TB last month (though it has not yet moved). It is a parody of a candidate along the campaign trail, it is really not political, but could be taken as such, I guess.

 

Any comments?

 

Geocachers don't NEED to ask for directions!

[+sbell111]

B&T-

 

I don't know any info regarding your travel bug, but I suggest that it is probably non-political.

 

If the bug were to endorse a candidate or political party, in any manner, it would be political. If it is simply a comment (parody?) on the campaign process, it would not be political.