Jump to content

Locationless Caches....your Opinion


BeDoggy

Recommended Posts

I really like them and wish we were still approving new ones. I have an idea for one that I think might interest many and yet wouldn't be an easy find by any means. But oh well......

 

What I've never really understood is the hatred that seems directed towards locationless by a handful of people. I have no desire to ever to a puzzle cache yet I'd never think about complaining about them on a forum.

 

Weird

Link to comment
I really like them and wish we were still approving new ones. I have an idea for one that I think might interest many and yet wouldn't be an easy find by any means. But oh well......

 

What I've never really understood is the hatred that seems directed towards locationless by a handful of people. I have no desire to ever to a puzzle cache yet I'd never think about complaining about them on a forum.

 

Weird

I agree.....puzzles frighten me, although eventually, I most likely will do one, just to say that I did. Also, in the argument against or for LC's and virts, someone mentioned people that aren't able to get out and "crawl around in the dirt" for a traditional. Right now, due to a bad back, I'm one of those people and would appreciate a good virt or LC, just to satisfy my craving for caching. I've said it before, others have said it before, and it will be said again: If you don't like them, don't do them. It's not about the numbers, so the padding theory doesn't fly with me. I may see that differently if I had a couple thousand caches under my belt, but at 13, I'm just not seeing it.

Link to comment
I really like them and wish we were still approving new ones.  I have an idea for one that I think might interest many and yet wouldn't be an easy find by any means.  But oh well......

 

What I've never really understood is the hatred that seems directed towards locationless by a handful of people.  I have no desire to ever to a puzzle cache yet I'd never think about complaining about them on a forum.

 

Weird

I agree.....puzzles frighten me, although eventually, I most likely will do one, just to say that I did. Also, in the argument against or for LC's and virts, someone mentioned people that aren't able to get out and "crawl around in the dirt" for a traditional. Right now, due to a bad back, I'm one of those people and would appreciate a good virt or LC, just to satisfy my craving for caching. I've said it before, others have said it before, and it will be said again: If you don't like them, don't do them. It's not about the numbers, so the padding theory doesn't fly with me. I may see that differently if I had a couple thousand caches under my belt, but at 13, I'm just not seeing it.

Only 2 or 3 of my caches could be considered even close to needing to 'crawl around in the dirt' to find. I don't place them to be specifically handicapped accessible, but I do keep that in mind when deciding on a locaton, especially for my urban caches.

Link to comment

I did not read all replys so sorry if I echo...

 

Some locationless are great.....Like finding your states Liberty Bell....DID NOT KNOW WE HAD ONE......there was also one where you found tall monuments build with a viewing platform.....I raced to downtown INDY to be the first and only. But come on.....Watertower.....ok I did log it :( ..... But come on.....there are some that are so stupidly easy. There needs to be tighter regulations on those.

Link to comment
What I've never really understood is the hatred that seems directed towards locationless by a handful of people.

 

I've followed this thread and even contributed a couple comments (suggesting that there are enough differences between traditional caches and LCs to justify different styles of cache pages, etc.), but I haven't seen any anti-LC comments that I'd call hatred. In fact, most folks have been downright cordial. The most "extreme" proposals seem to simply be--

 

(1) To spin them off into a separate section (perhaps to facilitate different rules, structure, etc.)

(2) To disallow LC finds from the conventional cache count. (My suggestion was to make it an option in the user's profile--add or not as you prefer.)

 

It'd take a pretty thin skin to see this as hatred of LCs. For myself, I think that tailoring a site section to LCs--because they're really more about photography than navigation--would be an excellent solution to the current logjam.

Link to comment
I think they should have their own area like benchmarks. They should also be renamed "iSpotting", since they are not caches that someone placed, but rather things already in existance.

Very nice description. I have a couple of Locationless but they were either because a real cache was hidden by one of the criteria or that I was going by it on the hunt for something else.

Link to comment

I really don't mind the virtuals, and I don't see anything wrong with listing them on this site. I will make up my mind if I wish to do them or not. I know of a few NORMAL caches I have chosen not to find for various reasons. As stated here earlier there a number of people who like to do the virts for whatever reason and many like to do puzzles. Leave them listed here and we can make up our own minds if we wish to locate or ignore them.

Link to comment
What I've never really understood is the hatred that seems directed towards locationless by a handful of people.  I have no desire to ever to a puzzle cache yet I'd never think about complaining about them on a forum.

 

Weird.

I haven't seen much of that hatred against LCs. Actually, I have been called a loser for not logging finds for them (I've logged two, but only with a note, not a Find) and for not starting to hunt them after I got a digicam. Ok, the loser thing was a joke, but still, my personal experiences tell me that I'm the weird one here for not being pro-LC.

 

Well AFAIK, I have never indicated any hatred towards LCs, and I'm happy if people like logging them. I just consider it a different game from geocaching (a bit like BMs which we don't have here) and I choose not to play it. Like many others, I'd vote for them to be separated from the total count like BMs, but I certainly don't hate them.

 

Edit: grammar

Edited by Divine
Link to comment

I have stated this on Woodsters.com so I will post it here as well. I think we need to look at what these caches are to the caching population at large. They are the "lunchtime" caches, the "history" caches they are the ones that people find because the 4/2 mountain climbing cache is not compatible with their wheelchair. It seems like people are ready to kill the LC/VC caches because THEY don't like them. Look at how many people log these things. I have never seen a physical cache with as many logs as some LC's.

 

For the most part these are the caches that people find because they are easy and maybe they can't walk the 1.5 miles of trails to get to the other caches. When you dump LC's, VC's, and later 1/1 urban micro caches (or drive up caches) then where will the people be who can't get the tough ones go for caches? It shouldn't matter what the individual thinks as this is a group sport (one person hides it, others find it). It should be something that people think of the group as a whole. Hide what you want and find what you want but don't force others to do what YOU want. Thats wrong.

 

I am not saying all caches should be easy but if you dump all the easy ones then where does that leave the people who can't get the harder ones.

Link to comment
I have stated this on Woodsters.com so I will post it here as well. I think we need to look at what these caches are to the caching population at large. They are the "lunchtime" caches, the "history" caches they are the ones that people find because the 4/2 mountain climbing cache is not compatible with their wheelchair. It seems like people are ready to kill the LC/VC caches because THEY don't like them. Look at how many people log these things. I have never seen a physical cache with as many logs as some LC's.

 

For the most part these are the caches that people find because they are easy and maybe they can't walk the 1.5 miles of trails to get to the other caches. When you dump LC's, VC's, and later 1/1 urban micro caches (or drive up caches) then where will the people be who can't get the tough ones go for caches? It shouldn't matter what the individual thinks as this is a group sport (one person hides it, others find it). It should be something that people think of the group as a whole. Hide what you want and find what you want but don't force others to do what YOU want. Thats wrong.

 

I am not saying all caches should be easy but if you dump all the easy ones then where does that leave the people who can't get the harder ones.

HEAR HEAR !!!!! 10 Thumbs up. :rolleyes::):rolleyes::)

Link to comment
It shouldn't matter what the individual thinks as this is a group sport (one person hides it, others find it). It should be something that people think of the group as a whole. Hide what you want and find what you want but don't force others to do what YOU want. Thats wrong.

See, that's where you are totally wrong. We all know this is just one of many sites listing geocaches. It's just a website that lists caches. A site owned by individual people, not some conglomerate of cachers. The individuals that own this website get to make the rules. If you like the rules, hang here and play. If you don't there's always all those other wonderful cache listing sites to use. Why do some people think they have some god-given right to demand how someone runs his website?

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
It shouldn't matter what the individual thinks as this is a group sport (one person hides it, others find it). It should be something that people think of the group as a whole. Hide what you want and find what you want but don't force others to do what YOU want. Thats wrong.

See, that's where you are totally wrong. We all know this is just one of many sites listing geocaches. It's just a website that lists caches. A site owned by individual people, not some conglomerate of cachers. The individuals that own this website get to make the rules. If you like the rules, hang here and play. If you don't there's always all those other wonderful cache listing sites to use. Why do some people think they have some god-given right to demand how someone runs his website?

Are you serious or being sarcastic here?

Link to comment
Are you serious or being sarcastic here?

Are you?

 

You said:

It shouldn't matter what the individual thinks as this is a group sport (one person hides it, others find it). It should be something that people think of the group as a whole. Hide what you want and find what you want but don't force others to do what YOU want. Thats wrong.

Last time I checked, this was not some public, goverment entity that you get to vote on. When you signed up here, you registered at geocaching.com, not .gov. Com as in commercial, owned by Groundspeak, Inc..

The fact is that TPTB do listen to the users, but the website will head in the direction they feel is best. If it's truly not the direction "the people want", as you acertain, then the company will fail, pure and simple. Not every company succeeds, and certainly not every .com. That's life. You still don't get to decide what happens. You either accept the way it is, or you leave.

If I don't like what you sell in your store, I go elsewhere, I don't stand in front yelling at you to stock my favorite brand. Why is this simple concept so hard to understand?

Link to comment
Are you serious or being sarcastic here?

Are you?

 

You said:

It shouldn't matter what the individual thinks as this is a group sport (one person hides it, others find it). It should be something that people think of the group as a whole. Hide what you want and find what you want but don't force others to do what YOU want. Thats wrong.

Last time I checked, this was not some public, goverment entity that you get to vote on. When you signed up here, you registered at geocaching.com, not .gov. Com as in commercial, owned by Groundspeak, Inc..

The fact is that TPTB do listen to the users, but the website will head in the direction they feel is best. If it's truly not the direction "the people want", as you acertain, then the company will fail, pure and simple. Not every company succeeds, and certainly not every .com. That's life. You still don't get to decide what happens. You either accept the way it is, or you leave.

If I don't like what you sell in your store, I go elsewhere, I don't stand in front yelling at you to stock my favorite brand. Why is this simple concept so hard to understand?

First of all I thought this was supposed to be a place where we could voice our opinions. Should we call this the Mopar boards? I am not demanding anything as I don't think anyone gives a **** what we think. The only thing that matters is how much money they can get from us before they kick us to the curb. I was just stating that a certain amount of people rely on these types of caches and without them they wouldn't be able to cache at all.

 

Also this does have a lot to do with use because they are just a listing service. We provide the caches so without us there is nothing to find.

 

I think you are to eager to attack people as I wasn't attacking gc.com in my statement. I am offended that you took one line out of my whole statement to base your attack on when the rest of the statement has more merit then most of the things you post in attacking anyone who disagrees with "The Man".

Link to comment
Should we call this the Mopar boards?

Gotta admit, I DO like the sound of that. Think Jeremy will go for it? How about we vote on it?

anything as I don't think anyone gives a **** what we think. The only thing that matters is how much money they can get from us before they kick us to the curb.

Wow, for someone who just said he WASN't attacking gc.com, sure sounds like it to me.

I was just stating that a certain amount of people rely on these types of caches and without them they wouldn't be able to cache at all.

Who might they be? The only people I've EVER heard make that statement is able-bodied cachers. I know of several handicapped cachers (some are even approvers and mods here) and all the ones I know would much rather sign a logbook than drive down the steet and record info off a roadside sign or take pics of yellow jeeps and flags. That's what terrain 1 caches are SUPPOSED to be for. But that's not even my point. TPTB have made it plenty clear that they DO want virtuals and locationless caches, they just want to create a site better suited for them than a site that was designed for physical caches. In the meantime, they have set limits on them. Why is every 5th thread here crying about that?

Also this does have a lot to do with use because they are just a listing service. We provide the caches so without us there is nothing to find.

Again, if you don't like this "listing service", go find one you do like. Nobody is holding a gun to your head keeping you here. Archive your hides, delete your finds, and go place them at the "listing service" of your choice. Simple, and not meant as an attack.

I think you are to eager to attack people as I wasn't attacking gc.com in my statement.

I wasn't attacking you at all, I was mearly voicing my opinion, just as you were. I do think your later statement I quoted earlier WAS in fact an attack on gc.com, but thats for the mods to decide, not me.

I am offended that you took one line out of my whole statement to base your attack on when the rest of the statement has more merit then most of the things you post in attacking anyone who disagrees with "The Man".

I took more than one line. I took all of your initial statement that pertained to this discussion, in my opinion. The first line outlining what other websites you discuss this on really has nothing to do with this topic. Neither did the part about handicapped people NEEDING virtuals and locationless, because they are somehow incapable of doing anything else. I rejected the part about dumping easy caches and only listing hard ones, because there is no basis in fact for that statement. So, what earthshattering statement of yours DID I miss back there?

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

yeesh, Mopar... what have you been doing, storing it all up for a month waiting for ChrisCindy to return to the forums? Chill out.

 

You can both make your points without all the vitriol. Underneath the hyperbole you are each making valid observations. Just don't take them to the edge and speak in absolute terms.

 

If you cut through all of Mopar's blustering, his best points are 1. there WILL be a separate area for virtuals and locationless in the future, it will be a better site, and there are limits in the meantime, and 2. sometimes handicapped people get offended when you say a cache is easy "just for them."

 

ChrisCindy and others in this topic rightly point out that the community has been rather in limbo for about a year now, waiting for the return of locationless caches and a better design for virtual caches. Their impatience is showing.

 

Play nice and discuss the subject calmly. Thanks.

Link to comment
Geesh, another warning. Wonder if I'm on Woodster's secret list yet?

Mopar, you managed to flatter yourself and insult Woodsters, all in one sentence.

 

ChrisCindy, I am not a big fan of picking apart posts by quoting one sentence at a time and then dissecting it. But if you are going to do that, please clean up the ubb code.

 

I ask both of you to call it a night. I gotta go to bed now.

Link to comment
Geesh, another warning. Wonder if I'm on Woodster's secret list yet?

Mopar, you managed to flatter yourself and insult Woodsters, all in one sentence.

 

ChrisCindy, I am not a big fan of picking apart posts by quoting one sentence at a time and then dissecting it. But if you are going to do that, please clean up the ubb code.

 

I ask both of you to call it a night. I gotta go to bed now.

I couldn't get it to work. Sorry I will try and get it working.

Link to comment
It seems like people are ready to kill the LC/VC caches because THEY don't like them.

I'm quoting this because you posted this right below my post, where I said I don't log finds for LCs. I know you didn't say so, but I just want to make clear that I don't want to kill LCs or VCs in any way. I don't like LCs, that's true, but I never said anywhere that they shouldn't exist. Who actually has flagged for killing LCs? Most 'anti'-LC posts I've seen just wish that they would be in separate section of the site, like benchmarks. (KA, thanks for the confirmation that it will actually happen! :) )

 

Could it be that the posts from people who don't like LCs are automatically read by some people as hatred and pro-killing towards locationless caches?

Link to comment
It seems like people are ready to kill the LC/VC caches because THEY don't like them.

I'm quoting this because you posted this right below my post, where I said I don't log finds for LCs. I know you didn't say so, but I just want to make clear that I don't want to kill LCs or VCs in any way. I don't like LCs, that's true, but I never said anywhere that they shouldn't exist. Who actually has flagged for killing LCs? Most 'anti'-LC posts I've seen just wish that they would be in separate section of the site, like benchmarks. (KA, thanks for the confirmation that it will actually happen! :) )

 

Could it be that the posts from people who don't like LCs are automatically read by some people as hatred and pro-killing towards locationless caches?

Yeah I wasn't quoting you or directly quoting anyone. I was summarizing the general murmurs of those that want them removed. I just happened to comein under you.

Link to comment

Last night I had fun planning a "how many VC can I get in a single photo?" run. (Hey, it's below zero outside. It was that or vacumn the living room.)

 

As I was doing so, a few things came to mind.

 

Largest Locomotives (DDA40X), Quad Map Name, and Merci Boxcars all stood out for a pair of reasons:

 

1) There are a very limited number of these items.

2) There is a certain historical or even just interesting thing about these items.

 

Personally, I think locationless caches like these are very worthwhile. They're challenging and even if you aren't FTLASO (first to log a specific one) they're worth visiting and even tacking a note with some photos onto. Lifting the temporary ban on this type of locationless would definately get my gratitude.

 

----

 

There are a lot of "local" locationless caches, either restricted by country or by state. Many of them felt like a kind of spread out virtual. On some of these, such as the trails, it would be really cool to see all the logged waypoints entered into some sort of map. I think it would up to the cache owner (or a kind soul) to do the job (ie. not TPTB) but it would be a nice feature on some of the caches.

 

-----

 

There's some odd duplication.

 

1) There are two almost identical steam engine caches. :)

2) [http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=18434]Cache at the Barrelhead[/url] can be checked off as soon as you find Not a benchmark.

 

It was the duplication (and some of the 1/1 caches like the historical site ones) that made me begin to understand why some sort of temporary halt to locationless caches needed to occurr. Even the yellow jeep cache struck me as being a lot more challenging than (for example) reading a radio transcript off the net. What the guidelines should be, I'm not sure, but a night of immersing myself in locationless caches indicates that there needs to be some.

Link to comment
... and all the ones I know would much rather sign a logbook than drive down the steet and record info off a roadside sign or take pics of yellow jeeps and flags.

 

So here I am driving down the most kitschy touristy street in Edmonton, and I see a YELLOW JEEP. :rolleyes: I was a about to grab my digicam for a pic when I realized my GPS was at home. :rolleyes::D BUMMER!!!! ROFL :D I wasn't even thinking of GeoCaching until I saw the stupid Yellow Jeep. So much for the free stat padding I was hoping for!

Link to comment
... and all the ones I know would much rather sign a logbook than drive down the steet and record info off a roadside sign or take pics of yellow jeeps and flags.

 

So here I am driving down the most kitschy touristy street in Edmonton, and I see a YELLOW JEEP. :rolleyes: I was a about to grab my digicam for a pic when I realized my GPS was at home. :rolleyes::D BUMMER!!!! ROFL :D I wasn't even thinking of GeoCaching until I saw the stupid Yellow Jeep. So much for the free stat padding I was hoping for!

LOL everyone talks about that one. I have never done the yellow Jeep as I never have my stuff when I see one.

Link to comment
I finally got fed up with seeing yellow jeeps I found one at work and logged it.

 

I was hoping I wouldn't see them anymore, but the nightmare continues.

I am going to start taking my GPS and digicam with me for just those purposes. :rolleyes:

That's what I had to do

I had a list of a handful of locationless caches that we looked for while going from cache to cache.

Link to comment

I like the Locationless caches. In fact I have one waiting for approval if and when the new rules are established. I do agree that it would be better if the locationless had their own section/category, like the Bench mark. The Virtual, although is not tangible, is more like the traditional in that you are looking for information or something specific.

 

Both Virtual and Loactionless are of value to folks who cannot get around as well as others. I have had occasion to take either an elderly person or one who needs assistance in walking to virtual caches and they enjoyed them very much. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Haven't done any locationless caches yet but like the idea especially now that it is -2 degrees out. Would like to see them in thier own section as they are very different than traditional caches. As far as padding the numbers, the numbers don't make any difference to me anyways. Just thought that I would add my vote if the person that is making the decision's is taking any kind of polls.

Link to comment
I'm a newbie. May it be possible that only pro-members can add a locationless cache? I've a good idea for a l.c., but the drop down list does not show me the right item. :)

 

Can someone help?

New Locationless are not allowed at the current time. Hopefully they will revived sometime in the near future, but don't hold your breath...

Link to comment

Forgive the absence of dates, but Jeremy stated this:

 

"Sorry to sound so vague, but we'll essentially be segregating them further in the future, much like we do with benchmarking. They really do fit in a category all their own."

 

and this:

 

"They'll be back. ...

 

Some of these projects are going on concurrently, and some (like locationless caches) are backburnered until the more important items are completed.

 

I find locationless caches of monumental importance and have a lot of ideas on how to make them more fun and manageable. Trust me that we will not abandon them, but we need more time to get these projects listed above so we have a healthy base to complete the locationless cache features."

 

or this:

 

"I can absolutely guarantee that we have some excellent plans with the locationless cache concept."

 

Why won't this thread die?

Link to comment

I have an idea for a cache which may count as lc.

I have a statue in my town which is one of perhaps 6 copies in the world, the original in Florence, Italy. Would I have to make it a site specific virtual cache for the one in my home town only? Heavy Sigh. :bad:

Link to comment
I did not read all replys so sorry if I echo...

 

Some locationless are great.....Like finding your states Liberty Bell....DID NOT KNOW WE HAD ONE......there was also one where you found tall monuments build with a viewing platform.....I raced to downtown INDY to be the first and only. But come on.....Watertower.....ok I did log it :bad: ..... But come on.....there are some that are so stupidly easy. There needs to be tighter regulations on those.

In the midwest there may be watertowers on every street corner, but out here they aren't quite so easy to find. I happened to be near one yesterday looking for "Where's in a Name?" and took a picture of the town's watertower on my way there (it wasn't close enough to the right coords to log it as a 2-for-1).

In California watertowers are even less common than here.

Link to comment
I have an idea for a cache which may count as lc.

I have a statue in my town which is one of perhaps 6 copies in the world, the original in Florence, Italy. Would I have to make it a site specific virtual cache for the one in my home town only? Heavy Sigh. :unsure:

Why 'Heavy Sigh'?

 

If the statues are worthy of being a locationless in your opinion, why wouldn't the one in your town be worthy of being a cache by itself?

Link to comment
I have an idea for a cache which may count as lc. 

I have a statue in my town which is one of perhaps 6 copies in the world, the original in Florence, Italy. Would I have to make it a site specific virtual cache for the one in my home town only?  Heavy Sigh.  :unsure:

Why 'Heavy Sigh'?

 

If the statues are worthy of being a locationless in your opinion, why wouldn't the one in your town be worthy of being a cache by itself?

The Madonna of the Trail statues were a locationless at first. Once they were all found, they became independant virtuals. (12 statues)

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...