Jump to content

Locationless Caches....your Opinion


BeDoggy

Recommended Posts

As far as padders and cheaters go, I think communities such as the geocaching community, tend towards self-regulation. My perception of the geocaching community is that we are, for the most part, honest and good people. I'm sure that there is a very small minority who would stop at nothing to bring their numbers up. Most folks are good at smelling rats and I think most of us would tend to distance ourselves from these kinds of people.

 

Back on thread - LCs are fine with me.

Link to comment

BassoonPilot-

Obviously you and I are on different ends of the spectrum here. I am not going to try and change your way of thinking on this as I doubt you will be able to change mine.

 

I do care. Not because of silly find counts, but because the "cheating," and our geocaching community's reaction to such "cheating," is nothing less than a direct reflection of how far the standards of society have fallen. It is my opinion that those who "don't care" are at least as much a part of the problem as those doing the actual "cheating." Your opinion may differ.

I went back to the original quote on this because I do want to understand you...

Could you explain to me how cheating is reflection on society's standards?

I can not think of a time when cheating did not occur on some level, unless the problem is different definations of what construes cheating or society...

 

No, of course not.  The car did not violate the law; it's operator did.  (Gee, I'm beginning to sound like an NRA member.)

 

So, we should be banning geocachers instead of LCs? LCs don't log themselves...

 

There is "nothing you (or I, for that matter) can personally do about many of the problems both on a small scale on this website and on a larger scale in our community/world.  "Not caring" because "there is nothing I can do" only allows situations/conditions to worsen.  It refers back to my earlier statement.

I am not caring on this issue is because I don't think its a issue...

Issues that are important are certainly worth fighting for and one person can make a difference albeit a small one, but lots of individuals trying to make a small difference will end up making a big difference (I think I worded that right.. :unsure: )

 

The important thing here is not should LCs be allowed or not, but should the decision to allow or disallow them be up to those who don't care for them. Everytime this issue comes up there are people who are passionately for and against them... Debate is good and hopfully productive but I am still left feeling, if you don't like them don't do them, leave them to the people who want to and have fun doing them...

Edited by Doc-Dean
Link to comment
As far as padders and cheaters go, I think communities such as the geocaching community, tend towards self-regulation. My perception of the geocaching community is that we are, for the most part, honest and good people. I'm sure that there is a very small minority who would stop at nothing to bring their numbers up. Most folks are good at smelling rats and I think most of us would tend to distance ourselves from these kinds of people.

 

Back on thread - LCs are fine with me.

I agree. It's none of my business if someone else wants to "pad" their count (or count their pads for that matter). If you're in it for the numbers, go right ahead. I'm in it for the fun, and am perfectly happy with my 10 finds. Hoping to change that tomorrow, with the help of a cane and heavy pain medication. Probably even do a virt on the way to some traditionals, just because it's there, staring me in the face. :unsure:

Link to comment
Geocache counts and why they are important.

 

1.  When you have a CLEAN data set, you can compare your numbers against other players numbers, not to compete, but to determine if you are finding them at a normal rate.  Also, if you track friends in the area and see that you are way ahead of them, you might be better off stopping finding caches and starting to place some for your friends to find.

 

2.  When your data set is not clean, it could be that player 1 has 100 finds that he did from his PC and 20 that he did for real.  Your 80 real ones are a much more impressive accomplishment. 

Impressive how and to who? It depends on what value each individual gives to them doesn't it ?

 

3.  When you are having problems, or you are considering new equipment to buy, you want advice, if you don't know a lot of  the cachers in your area, looking at the numbers can help you find some one that has more experience and can give you better advice.  Again, reflect on #2, and this value to the data set is limited.

 

What about the person who logs false regular geocaches but only logs real LCs??

How clean is your data now BRM??

 

I think that the cheating is minimal and not a significant enough problem to throw off statistics or alter the world of geocaching and if anyone else knows otherwise, I would like them to show it...

Edited by Doc-Dean
Link to comment
I don't usually post, and after this I don't think I ever will again. I come to the forums to gather information, of which there has been very little lately, and to see if there are any new ideas that might interest me. I've done a lot of LC'S lately and I love them. I'll bet I spent a way more time and effort (weeks) looking for a yellow jeep than most have on any "regular cache". Most would give up on a regular cache after looking for 15 minutes or less and then register a DNF. What I do, I do for personal reasons and I don't give a rat's a** what somebody else does or does not do, let alone their "COUNT". It's like watching TV, if you don't like it, don't watch. BTW - Well said Doc-Dean.

It's too bad you have this kind of reaction. I never had any intent to say numbers are very important or that those who do virts are cheating. I'm not going to sit here and say that anyone is less legitimate as a geocacher because they choose to do alot of them. Geocaching is a fun diversion,(to me, anyways) and getting "serious" about it is in my opinion just solemn foolery.

 

The point of my post was to ask what everyone thought of virts and whether they suited thier taste. If you like virtuals, then knock yourself out. More power to you.

Personally, they're not to my taste so I probably won't do many of them.

 

Some people hate asperagus, I love it. It doesn't mean I view others as inferior because of it.

 

I hope you'll post and contribute in the future. I think you could contribute alot to the forums and to our area in particular.

Link to comment
The reason I brought this up was that I'm new to virtuals and to my surprise got the feeling it was all too easy. I'll probably still do a few more of this type, but I guess the traditional game is more my cup of tea.

 

 

One of the toughest caches I ever did was a virtual that involved a 9 mile RT hike and a very stiff climb of a mountain and some serious bushwacking. It was far more rewarding than many 1/1 roadside caches. That being said, this virtual was an exception, but my point is that there are great caches of all types.

Now THAT'S the kind of virtual I would like!

Link to comment

Locationless Caches, what's not to like? Most of them can be done all over the world. It makes for interesting reading and I have several on my watch lists. Often, doing a locationless cache means finding out more history of an area. In looking for Stone Bridges of the World, I found out that my area of Napa County has 10 stone bridges still standing. I looked long and hard for a yellow jeep, and now I know where one "lives" in my area. In Fill in the Blanks you actually have to place a physical cache to log it.

 

Just like a physical cache, you must go out and find it, except for Radio K.A.O.S. That's all in the game. Those who get hung up on numbers are playing a different game of their own. I say let them get their jollies however they want. If they cheat to get more numbers, its their own bad character. If it doesn't bother them, why should it bother me?

 

I am eagerly waiting for locationless caches to return, and I have a feeling they will have their own category, just like benchmarks. Trouble is a couple of locationless caches also have a physical cache, like my own Top of the Watershed and the Fold Bags to help Trash Out caches. I submitted a new locationless cache in April and it is still archived pending the new classifications. I hope they return soon.

 

If you wanted to get rid of locationless caches, you might as well get rid of all virtuals, they are so similar. So I say, if you don't like them, don't do them. But I really like them.

Link to comment
Locationless Caches, what's not to like? Most of them can be done all over the world. It makes for interesting reading and I have several on my watch lists. Often, doing a locationless cache means finding out more history of an area. In looking for Stone Bridges of the World, I found out that my area of Napa County has 10 stone bridges still standing. I looked long and hard for a yellow jeep, and now I know where one "lives" in my area. In Fill in the Blanks you actually have to place a physical cache to log it.

 

Just like a physical cache, you must go out and find it, except for Radio K.A.O.S. That's all in the game. Those who get hung up on numbers are playing a different game of their own. I say let them get their jollies however they want. If they cheat to get more numbers, its their own bad character. If it doesn't bother them, why should it bother me?

 

I am eagerly waiting for locationless caches to return, and I have a feeling they will have their own category, just like benchmarks. Trouble is a couple of locationless caches also have a physical cache, like my own Top of the Watershed and the Fold Bags to help Trash Out caches. I submitted a new locationless cache in April and it is still archived pending the new classifications. I hope they return soon.

 

If you wanted to get rid of locationless caches, you might as well get rid of all virtuals, they are so similar. So I say, if you don't like them, don't do them. But I really like them.

Yup. I tend to agree with the lady who carries a gun! :unsure:

 

Seriously, she pretty much stated what I did, and what others have stated: to each his own, if ya don't like'em, don't do'em! :D

Link to comment

Jeeps are not so common here in Sweden (mainly because of fuel consumption and petrol price) and if you spot any Jeep, it's not a yellow one. Therefor is the search for a yellow Jeep very challenging. I once spotted one, but didn't have the camera with me!!!

 

Okay, you can cheat while logging LC. But you can also cheat while logging a multi, traditional, virtual or whatever type of cache. If you search on the internet and find the solution for a virtual cache (like: go to the coord X/Y and tell me what is written on the grave). Do you really visit the site or do you just log the cache and mail them the answer?

 

What about teams caching? A team that consists of, lets say, 4 people finding a total of 200 caches. Are those 200 caches not worth the same as a single cachers 200 found caches.. They were 4 people finding every cache. 3 pair of extra eyes looking for each cache.

 

I think that the problem is that so many people wants to regulate geocaching. IT'S A GAME!

 

Sometimes when I read inside this forum I get really afraid. It seems like some people wants to have like a guide book that everybody must carry while caching. Inside that book can you find regulations about the size of your boots, the color of your jacket, which model of GPSr, if it is okay to use some words in your log, what to do if you don't find the cache, if it is worth the same to find a micro as a large and so on...

 

It's no competition. Everybody has there own goals with geocaching. Some people wants to take 5 caches every year. Some people wants to take 50 caches on each yourney. Other people wants to do only LC. Other people hate them. Some people doesn't like micro caches. Some people get annoyed by ammo boxes because of religious reasons. We are all different persons with different goals.

Okay, we can compare results. But it won't say anything.

Some people can afford going on holiday to other states/countries to cache, other can't. Some people travel alot in business and might have an opportunity to do a cache or two at the same time. Some people don't own a car. Some people doesn't even own a GPSr!

 

The stats are only for us self to satisfy our own ego. Okay, I can always compare with other, but it won't give away the whole truth as the condition (right word for it?) varys with every single user.

 

(I hope you can understand, English is just my second language...)

Link to comment
...............

 

I think that the problem is that so many people wants to regulate geocaching. IT'S A GAME!

 

Sometimes when I read inside this forum I get really afraid. It seems like some people wants to have like a guide book that everybody must carry while caching. Inside that book can you find regulations about the size of your boots, the color of your jacket, which model of GPSr, if it is okay to use some words in your log, what to do if you don't find the cache, if it is worth the same to find a micro as a large and so on...

 

...........................

 

(I hope you can understand, English is just my second language...)

Whatever your language you can see very clearly. And you state the case very well.

 

It is after all a game.

Link to comment
Could you explain to me how cheating is reflection on society's standards?

I can not think of a time when cheating did not occur on some level, unless the problem is different definations of what construes cheating or society...

 

I think you would do better to consider the word you used ..."tolerance." It's a double-edged concept; in some situations, "tolerance" may in fact (over time) raise the standards on which society operates. In other situations, "tolerance" leads to a lowering of those standards. That's because over time, "tolerance" leads to the acceptance of the "tolerated" situation or behavior as the "norm" for that situation or behavior. And the cycle begins anew.

 

So, we should be banning geocachers instead of LCs? LCs don't log themselves...

 

As you have been responding to my posts, I wish you would point out precisely where in this thread I called for restrictions or the banishment of locationless caches. If I recall correctly, cheaters have been banned in the past. I fully support such action when necessary.

 

I am not caring on this issue is because I don't think its a issue...

Well then, we'll have to "agree to disagree."

 

The important thing here is not should LCs be allowed or not, but should the decision to allow or disallow them be up to those who don't care for them.

 

I wish these forums had the influence on TPTB that you appear to believe they do. Decisions regarding LCs will be made by TPTB, presumably with input from his trusted advisors, the Approverators and staff. I do not know if they are of one mind on the subject.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment
Geocache counts and why they are important.

 

1. When you have a CLEAN data set, you can compare your numbers against other players numbers, not to compete, but to determine if you are finding them at a normal rate. Also, if you track friends in the area and see that you are way ahead of them, you might be better off stopping finding caches and starting to place some for your friends to find.

 

2. When your data set is not clean, it could be that player 1 has 100 finds that he did from his PC and 20 that he did for real. Your 80 real ones are a much more impressive accomplishment.

 

3. When you are having problems, or you are considering new equipment to buy, you want advice, if you don't know a lot of the cachers in your area, looking at the numbers can help you find some one that has more experience and can give you better advice. Again, reflect on #2, and this value to the data set is limited.

Your conclusion is flawed. You are making the assumption that all 'regular' caches are equal, therefore making fair comparisons between any two cachers possible. This is not the case, however.

 

What about easy caches? I once found over twenty caches during lunch (no virts or LCs).

 

What about cache teams? Certainly, it is easier for more than one person to locate a cache than it is for someone hunting solo.

 

This brings up groups who log under one account, even when caching solo. They may log caches in different parts of the country at the same time.

 

Then you have people who organize cache tours; driving out-of-towners to cache locations and going do far as to give them hints to guarantee finds.

 

To all that stand apposed to LCs:

As been said many, many times, if you don't like LCs, do not do them. Do not try to stop others from enjoying them. As long as the rules of the site and the cache owner are followed, it's all good.

Link to comment

Doc-Dean, in all aspects of our society there are certain mores. Cheating at anything is considered by most to be unacceptable. There is cheating at solitare and cheating company shareholders out of millions of dollars. In between there are other levels of cheating. Some cheating rises to the level of a crime while other cheating, though not a crime, should at least have a stigma attached to it; the stigma of disapproval.

 

Cheating at geocaching is not a crime, but the least the community could do is make it known that it isn't acceptable. To ignore it, is to give it tacit approval.

 

And no, cheating at geocaching is not victimless. As I've pointed out before, it can cause other geocachers to waste valuable time.

Link to comment

I certainly think that cheating should not be tolerated. However, appropriately logging LCs according to site and owner guidelines is not cheating. There are those that would like to make the argument that enjoying and logging LCs is a form of cheating. In my opinion, people who would make this argument are merely trying to obfuscate the issue to bolster their weak position.

Link to comment

Oh, so much to say, and so little desire to say it ALL OVER AGAIN!!!!

 

My new heros:

 

Orion47, Doc Dean, JMBella, rusty tlc, kingdmen26, Eric K, Huntnlady, hedberg, sbell111.

 

Why? Because they make sense in their replies to this topic. I say this because they express the desire to keep an aspect of this GAME, that is enjoyed by a LOT of GEOCACHERS, integral and enjoyable without being fenced off into it's own "section".

 

I am far from understanding why individuals want to badmouth a certain type of "cache" because they don't "feel" it's a "legitimate" type of cache????? Both Virtuals and Locationless are just different types of caches in this little game of ours. If you are worried about people "padding" their numbers then you are in this for the competition, not the enjoyment of finding caches. Now you know.

 

If you are insistent on locationless, or virtuals, being sectioned off because you don't "feel" they are legit, then you are simply trying to make your opinion the dominant one for your own personal reasons, none of which I know or care to know. I do NOT cache hunt for YOU!! I cache hunt for ME!! You don't cache hunt for ME!! You cache hunt for YOU!! Do it how you want and allow me to do so as I wish. Quit telling me my enjoyment of certain types of caches should be segregated because you don't like them... or don't like how they can be used to "pad" numbers, or how people can cheat, none of which is relevant to their existence.

 

I, for one, enjoye doing all types of caches presently in the game. I would like to continue to enjoy them, as is, not segregated off into the "bad side" of the game. Thank you, but no thank you.

 

Keep your nose out of my Geocaching, please.

 

:mad::blink:;);):(B)

 

p. s. (those that know me will understand this is not aimed at the original poster, this issue has a long history and will probably continue long after we are all DUST!!!)

Link to comment

I'm confused. If we separate caches by the object found (benchmark, physical container, & view) into 3 sections of the site, how does one section become "the 'bad side' of the game"?

 

Benchmarks, virtuals, and caches strike me as three different ways to enjoy the same basic sport. Having them in their own areas doesn't strike me as making any one of them any worse than the others.

 

Honestly, I see it as an opportunity to make a lot of things easier for all types of caches.

Link to comment

Dividing the site into "sections" will undoubtedly make one side the "BAD" side. The perverbial (?) other side of the tracks. One group will always look at the other as "cheats" or "padders" or "illegitimate" and "not real cachers".

 

I like the site the way it is and as previously stated by many, if you don't like it don't do it. Why should there have to be "special sections" just because a few don't like some aspects of the game? Why cause more dissension when all people have to do is DO WHAT THEY LIKE TO DO AND BE HAPPY WITH THAT. Not be unhappy with what someone else is doing.

Link to comment

I don't do them, but I have nothing against them. I think in the origianl post that it was said that something didn't feel right. I think that something is that they don't actually require a GPSr to find.

 

I know you have to show a pic of your GPSr with the subject matter, but it dosen't take one to find it. I think in a lot of ways that locationless caches are a serendipity of caching. Like seeing a yellow jeep that you weren't really looking for. In a lot of cases these are just happened upon.

 

There are some great locationless caches out there, but I think the problem came about when people wanted to turn every trivial thing into one. Much like Virtual caches. I've never done a virtual, but I can certainly see them as legit caches. They take a GPSr to find, and when it comes down to it, I'd rather find a good virtual rather than a lame traditional.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
I don't do them, but I have nothing against them. I think in the origianl post that it was said that something didn't feel right. I think that something is that they don't actually require a GPSr to find.

 

I know you have to show a pic of your GPSr with the subject matter, but it dosen't take one to find it. I think in a lot of ways that locationless caches are a serendipity of caching. Like seeing a yellow jeep that you weren't really looking for. In a lot of cases these are just happened upon.

 

There are some great locationless caches out there, but I think the problem came about when people wanted to turn every trivial thing into one. Much like Virtual caches. I've never done a virtual, but I can certainly see them as legit caches. They take a GPSr to find, and when it comes down to it, I'd rather find a good virtual rather than a lame traditional.

 

El Diablo

 

Point taken but not agreed with. Obviously they are part of the game no matter what equipment is needed. A person can do most of the "regular" caches with a compass and map. No GPSr needed.

Link to comment
I don't do them, but I have nothing against them. I think in the origianl post that it was said that something didn't feel right. I think that something is that they don't actually require a GPSr to find.

 

I know you have to show a pic of your GPSr with the subject matter, but it dosen't take one to find it. I think in a lot of ways that locationless caches are a serendipity of caching. Like seeing a yellow jeep that you weren't really looking for. In a lot of cases these are just happened upon.

 

There are some great locationless caches out there, but I think the problem came about when people wanted to turn every trivial thing into one. Much like Virtual caches. I've never done a virtual, but I can certainly see them as legit caches. They take a GPSr to find, and when it comes down to it, I'd rather find a good virtual rather than a lame traditional.

 

El Diablo

 

Point taken but not agreed with. Obviously they are part of the game no matter what equipment is needed. A person can do most of the "regular" caches with a compass and map. No GPSr needed.

Your point is taken. However the vast majority of people can't find a cache using a map and a compass.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Dividing the site into "sections" will undoubtedly make one side the "BAD" side. The perverbial (?) other side of the tracks. One group will always look at the other as "cheats" or "padders" or "illegitimate" and "not real cachers".

 

I like the site the way it is and as previously stated by many, if you don't like it don't do it. Why should there have to be "special sections" just because a few don't like some aspects of the game? Why cause more dissension when all people have to do is DO WHAT THEY LIKE TO DO AND BE HAPPY WITH THAT. Not be unhappy with what someone else is doing.

I agree with this. My original post was more about how one feels about these kinds of caches in regards to one's self, not judging others on it. The site should be like it is. The way things are now, locationless caches are in fact counted as caches. No problem. If I feel like locationless caches are not my kinda thing, I just won't go out of my way to do them. On the other hand, I saw a personal profile a couple days ago where the cacher had almost all locationless and virtual finds.

 

Hey, whatever turns a person's crank. If it brings them enjoyment and a sense of accomplishment, good for them. As for them being "legitimate" cachers, I would ask, what is "legitimate"? I mean, it's not like there are any stakes to be played for or anything. The point is to find enjoyment and a diversion from the stresses of life. I don't really even care much if some people DO cheat. Maybe they get a charge out of breaking the rules because it's one of the few places they could do that without facing major consequences.

 

Do what makes you feel happy and don't worry what others think.

Link to comment
.......................

My new heros:

 

Orion47, Doc Dean, JMBella, rusty tlc, kingdmen26, Eric K, Huntnlady, hedberg, sbell111...........................

Yeah I'm a hero!

I have one question: Will all this retoric change the way geocaching.com list's caches? Cause if it will I need to get a lot more vocal. Otherwise it remains retoric.

Just one cacher's opinion.

Link to comment

I am in no way condoning cheating and I don't think my previous posts have suggested it but I want to make it clear.

 

As far as I have experienced in geocaching for 2 years now, I have not wittnessed nor read about any significant amount of cheating in the game. If its happening, where is it?

 

I have not been shown how cheating is a direct reflection of society's standards. Again I use the term tolerance because it is tolerance of cheating that shows what society's standards are. We tolerate downloading MP3s and cheating the music industry out of money. They are fighting it but there has been no public outcry and yet many are still doing it...

 

BP - I did not mean to say that you individually have called for the banishment of LCs but I was pointing out how your line of logic was faulted. And I have no problem agreeing on disagreeing... the debate has been excellent and you are quite well spoken. Also I am not naive enough to believe that anyone other than TPTB will make the final decisions but I will certainly make my case here in hopes that the pleas of the $3/month minions do not go unheard...

 

El Diablo - Most of the LCs do have merit (the popular Yellow Jeep is an exception) and I have found some of the most interesting sites while hunting them. It takes some planning to find some of those hidden treasures... Others are right in front of your eyes if you open them to see...

There are some great locationless caches out there, but I think the problem came about when people wanted to turn every trivial thing into one. Much like Virtual caches. I've never done a virtual, but I can certainly see them as legit caches. They take a GPSr to find, and when it comes down to it, I'd rather find a good virtual rather than a lame traditional.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.

Link to comment
I don't do them, but I have nothing against them. I think in the origianl post that it was said that something didn't feel right. I think that something is that they don't actually require a GPSr to find.

 

I know you have to show a pic of your GPSr with the subject matter, but it dosen't take one to find it. I think in a lot of ways that locationless caches are a serendipity of caching. Like seeing a yellow jeep that you weren't really looking for. In a lot of cases these are just happened upon.

 

There are some great locationless caches out there, but I think the problem came about when people wanted to turn every trivial thing into one. Much like Virtual caches. I've never done a virtual, but I can certainly see them as legit caches. They take a GPSr to find, and when it comes down to it, I'd rather find a good virtual rather than a lame traditional.

 

El Diablo

;)

 

?

 

For most of the locationless caches we have done, a GPS is needed.

The owner of the locationless usually requires not only a picture of the GPS with the object they request, but the coordinates as well....

 

We have also done some virtuals, that if we had not had our GPS we would have started at the wrong spot....there are multiple question virtuals out there that require you to go to specific coordinates....

Link to comment
If locationless caches had their own section, I would enjoy doing them and do a bunch.  Unfortunately, they pollute my find count, so I don't do them.

Want me to upload a calculator to help you with subtraction? ;)

 

Someone suggested a sock-puppet account just for doing LCs, which may be another pollution-free solution...

Edited by Doc-Dean
Link to comment

I've been giving a lot of thought to the different potential cache sections. Not much result but a lot of thought.

 

Traditionals have Regular, Themed, Multi, Puzzle, Micro, Letterbox Hybrid and maybe a type or two I'm missing, plus the experiments that are not common enough to be a theme yet.

 

Virtuals have Scenic locations, Historical Locations, Webcam, and maybe some other types.

 

Locationless have at least two distinct types. find the coords and go to the spot, and find the object and report the coords. GPS Hunt and Scavenger Hunt per Buxleys

 

Cache events have now broken into, Org meetings, and One time get togethers and cache machines.

 

Benchmarks don't yet seem to have clear types but they could. I don't benchmark so I'm in the dark here.

 

Obviously this list is rather raw and unpolished. But what it is is a way to organize types of caches. Why? For one thing you can keep the GCXXXX points for traditionals. LC for locatinless, VC for virtual etc. This allows the 4 digit waypoint limit (since they are keeping the GC for now) to grow. It allows stats to be broken out so more people can have fun more ways when there are stats again.

 

It also allows the 528' rule to not interfere with other distinct cache types. It also lets you focus on the caches that you like to find. You can already do that somewhat with pocket queries but the limitation is built in to how you organize the cache data.

 

Just a thought. One I'm working on. Flame away.

Link to comment
... they express the desire to keep an aspect of this GAME, that is enjoyed by a LOT of GEOCACHERS, integral and enjoyable without being fenced off into it's own "section".

 

I am one of the folks advocating spinning off LCs. My reason is not that LCs are 'bad' or 'good' but that they don't fit very well into the database structure used for physical caches. For example, under what circumstances would you log a "Not Found" for an LC? Face it, the LC concept does not share many characteristics with physical or even virtual caches in that there is no 'navigational' component to it. I was careful to say that this doesn't make it bad, just quite a bit different from Geocaching.

 

The current state of affairs is that LCs are dead in that no new ones are being approved. I don't see any strong case being made for reviving LCs as currently defined, so the only way to bring them back would be to make some changes. I proposed an admittedly vague framework that would be a better fit for LCs in the hope that they might be resurrected as a better activity.

 

And BTW, if LCs were revived within their own section of GC.com (with a structure better suited to the activity), how hard do you think it'd be to implement a check box in your profile to "Include LCs in Caches-Found Count"? My guess: trivial.

Link to comment
...

And BTW, if LCs were revived within their own section of GC.com (with a structure better suited to the activity), how hard do you think it'd be to implement a check box in your profile to "Include LCs in Caches-Found Count"? My guess: trivial.

I think that's the general game plan for them. There are a couple of threads that do have Jeremy's comments as to the future of locationless caches. The moratorium is indefinite at this point, but not forever.

Link to comment

I personally like locationless caches because they're fun and I've found a lot of things in my area that I never would have before.

 

As far as padding numbers and it screwing up the data for a "normal" rate of caching, cache density varies so much it's hard to get a normal rate anyway. I have 34 caches within 20 miles of my house (9 of which are mine). My dad has 419 caches within 20 miles. Our "normal" rate will differ widely.

 

Now if I can only find a yellow jeep while I have a camera and GPS unit!

Link to comment

I really like the locationless ones because many have given me good history lessons and have taken me places that I otherwise may never have gone. The Merci Boxcar, Doughboy, and Turner Bronze are good examples. I really enjoy seeing the different pictures from around the world. Because of my profession, I find many of these far more interesting than regular caches. It's like taking a trip with some of them that you see posted with photos. I've had lots of fun with these LCs over the past few months--more so than with other caches.

However, I do agree with some of you about cache owners needing to police their caches. Take a look at the Active Cabooses and you'll see loads of them are NOT active. You'll find Grain Elevators for Canada now posted in Alabama and Germany. Also, has anyone noticed how many people keep logging locationless caches that have been archived? What's with that? I suppose a lot of people just don't read the instructions--but I've certainly made such mistakes before.

If they lift the moratorium, and I sure hope they do, I'd love to hide some! Much fun!

Edited by cacheKidds
Link to comment
...Also, has anyone noticed how many people keep logging locationless caches that have been archived? What's with that?...

To do a locationless you have to have a list. That list stands at about 400. When you find someting on the list you have so painstakingly made and go to log it and find it archived, I'm not going to say "oh golly, gee, I guess I'll slam down some tequila shoot up the bar, go home with a stranger and console myself" No-siree, You are going to log that sucker.

 

Which reminds me. Since a lot of people make these lists it would be nice to have a field in the locationless cash called "Object" so you know that the cache called. "Lots O Miles" is really 500,000 on your odometer. It would save a lot of time and we would probably log less archived ones, or at least less arms would get chewed off.

 

I'm looking forward to your future locationless caches!

Link to comment
Dividing the site into "sections" will undoubtedly make one side the "BAD" side. The perverbial (?) other side of the tracks. One group will always look at the other as "cheats" or "padders" or "illegitimate" and "not real cachers".
Does anyone consider benchmarks the "Bad" side now? Does anyone consider someone a "cheat" or "padder" or "illegitimate" and "not real cacher" because they do benchmarks?

 

Why should there have to be "special sections" just because a few don't like some aspects of the game?
Instead of that "because" how about "because then the .1 mile rule can be ignored by virtual or locationless caches. If someone places a physical or a virtual cache the area is still open for someone to place a completely different type of cache is the same area." or "because the maintanence requirements between virtual and physical caches can be customized as needed" or "because it makes for easier for people to find the type of cache they want to do that day".

 

All this hate and distrust is getting really old.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...