Historical Site Links

[+Happy Landins]

I have an idea for a whole new type of "caching".

 

Really, not everyone is interested in the traditional aspects of the hidden cache, the nicknacks and the log book.

 

I think there is a large group of other people who would be more interested in what might be thought of as "Historical Trails" - where famous people in the past were born, visited, lived, were buried. These could be a whole new series of themed sites - perhaps named Great People Sites (=GPS). More of a historical/intellectual pursuit than a wild-country, hide and go seek adventure

 

Often these historical places are in cities and towns, so don't lend themselves to the traditional cache type of site. They are much more suitable to the virtual cache model, which I understand is going out of fashion amongst the purists.

 

For example, I am particularly interested in a couple of people who lived in England - one in the 14th century, and one in the 19th century who travelled to India. I would like to visit places where they lived and (along with other GPS people) compile a Great People Site trail that other visitors could then follow. This would be accompanied on the web page by relevant quotes from books and documents referring to the places where they lived/died etc. This is quite a different approach, and geared more to a book oriented search rather than the bracing wilderness style. It would definitely appeal to a different audience, and would provide a valuable educational aspect for children.

 

The scope for this type of search is as wide as the number of famous people in history - from Marilyn Monroe to Mary Queen of Scots, from Julius Caesar to Jack the Ripper, from the Pilgrim Fathers to Peter the Great.

 

I think it would be important to name the "GPS" trails using the name of the famous person, rather than an arbitrary name. For example, Marilyn Monroe #1 , Marilyn Monroe #2 etc.

 

I wonder - are the "highups" in Geocaching open to such a new branching out of the hobby?

[+geospotter]

Some of my favorite caches have been historical in nature, combining a nice walk or hike along with a bit of education.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'd like to see this as a subset of virtual. A lot of people can't stand the historical signs (though the location itself would be different).

[+Krandor]

If virtuals get their own section you might be able to make it work there.

 

Outside of that, what you could do in relation to what is accepted now is to make it is a multi-cache. Post coordinates to part 1, have something there that gets you coordinates to part 2, etc. after the last part you can send them to a regular hidden cache. or you could do a micro nearby for each part (go to part 1, then there is a mico you can look for or not nearby) and the same for the others.

 

If done that way, you couold get them approved now and then work toward being able to do them differently in the future.

[evilrooster]

What, like this one, which I created before the virtual ban?

 

It doesn't quite fit the sort of thing you're thinking about, because it has a definite target, not just a place but a physical object.

 

I was going to do another one like it, about Madeline Smith (a notorious murder suspect from the Victorian era), but I find the idea of telling the entire story and then having to set up a pointless Tupperware box at the end just to satisfy the rules to be an anticlimax. Maybe when virtuals are kosher again, if ever...

[+bons]

For a modern twist on this idea read Mother Earth Mother Board by Neal Stephenson.

 

edit: typo in link

Edited January 19, 2004 by bons

[evilrooster]

For a modern twist on this idea read Mother Earth Mother Board by Neal Stephenson.

Broken link - try this one. (no quote at the end).

[+SamLowrey]

What you propose already exists without the naming convention or central organization, right? They are called "walking tours" right? I would like to do more of them, though, and your new idea would make it easier to find them and inspire people to participate.

 

I don't think the higher ups here would be interested. I would be, though. You could start your own thing. Only thing stopping me from signing up would be there aren't that many interesting trails in my area to look at and I would have to travel a lot.

Edited January 18, 2004 by SamLowrey

[+briansnat]

You can just hide a series of caches at these sites and connect them together with a common name, e.g. The George Washington Trail - Birthplace, The George Washington Trail-Battle of Monmouth, The George Washington Trail - Gravesite, etc....

 

This way those who are interested in the history, can follow the trail, while others still have a cache to find whether they have an interest, or not.

[+Cache Viking]

Set up a Virtual a while back at a Historical site. First looked it over for a Micro location but it is all mowed weeds, paths and several homes looking right down on it.

 

You can see it here: Lost Mission

 

Seems to be very much what you are talking about. In this case it isn't just any historical site but one that many do not know exist as you can see in the logs.

[+Happy Landins]

I think the idea of linking sites together - daisy chaining - is not what I'd like to do. Often the relevant "Great Person Sites" may be scattered over large areas of the world. For eample, the guy I'm interested in, who went to India, also lived in England (and he also moved round quite a bit in England).

 

So it's not really practical for one person to do the whole job. And anyway it would be better for a TEAM of people interested in that particular person to log additional sites where he/she was - but still linked together as a themed group. For one thing, a team would bring together a wider range of knowledge on the subject's movements.

 

CAN ANYTHING BE DONE?

On a practical level, is it possible that "The Geocaching Powers That Be" ever read this correspondence?

 

Did the mandate about "fewer virtual caches" come as a democratic decision? Or was it a big-government style, top-down mandate? Are they open to petitions from the people? Can anyone tell me where is the White House of Geocaching established? To Whom do we address our humble thoughts, requests, and ideas?

[evilrooster]

The mandate about virtual caches was not democratic, in the sense that it wasn't the subject of any sort of vote or poll.

 

There was a lot of discussion about virts in the forums, and three main lines of argument against them emerged. First (as with all cache types) some of the virts posted were pretty poor quality. Second, it became apparent that a number of cachers, who are often very active in the forums, were (and are) adamantly opposed to virts as being too far from the original spirit of geocaching. Third, there was some perception that virts were "blocking" placement of traditional (and, in their eyes, "better") caches in some areas.

 

Whether The Powers That Be decided to restrict virtuals due to the opinions in the forums or not, I don't know. I know that advocating virts too strongly here is a great way to get insulted (perhaps the new mod rules will tone that down), and not at all effective in getting the policy changed. The decision has been made, and the best we can hope for is that virts will eventually get their own section to evolve in peace.

 

Remember that this is not a democracy, but a business. For whatever reasons, Jeremy et al have decided that the set of their customers who prefer traditional caches should carry the day. TPTB are entitled to make such decisions, and, having done so, do not appear to be swayed by arguments in favor of virts.

 

Although I am (clearly) a fan of virtual caches, I've tried to be factual in this post. I've given up on trying to get them re-instated, or even valued, by the establishment here. The loss of virts is, however, one of the reasons I have stopped placing caches - if I can't place what, in my judgment, is the best cache for a given area, then I won't place at all.

Edited January 19, 2004 by evilrooster

[+briansnat]

Although I am (clearly) a fan of virtual caches, I've tried to be factual in this post. I've given up on trying to get them re-instated, or even valued, by the establishment here. The loss of virts is, however, one of the reasons I have stopped placing caches - if I can't place what, in my judgment, is the best cache for a given area, then I won't place at all.

 

They don't have to be re-instated, because they're still allowed. I've seen them approved. It's just that you need a darn good reason for placing one now.

 

There was a lot of discussion about virts in the forums, and three main lines of argument against them emerged. First (as with all cache types) some of the virts posted were pretty poor quality. Second, it became apparent that a number of cachers, who are often very active in the forums, were (and are) adamantly opposed to virts as being too far from the original spirit of geocaching. Third, there was some perception that virts were "blocking" placement of traditional (and, in their eyes, "better") caches in some areas.

 

...and Fourth (and most important in my mind), when negotiating the placement of caches with land managers, they would frequently point to virtuals as an acceptable alternative, which endangered traditional geocaching in many areas. People would get a reaction like, "We're uncomfortable with a box on our land, but you have these virtual caches that everyone seems to like and that would be fine with us"...end of discussion.

Edited January 19, 2004 by briansnat

[evilrooster]

They don't have to be re-instated, because they're still allowed. I've seen them approved. It's just that you need a darn good reason for placing one now.

They are allowed, if they can't be shoehorned into a multicache. That's not the same as being allowed full stop, or valued equally with other cache types. (You still don't need a darned good reason for placing a traditional.)

 

The key issue is whether virtuals are inherently inferior to traditional caches, or just a variation on them.

 

Briansnat, among others, feels that they are inferior by nature. Therefore, any way that they impact on traditional caches is a bad thing, whether it be by taking up approver time, blocking out spaces that might be used for a traditional cache, or giving landowners an alternative to traditional caches if they're undecided about caching on their land.

 

I, among others, don't feel that virts are inferior. Disagreeing on the premise, of course we end up disagreeing on the consequences that flow from that premise.

 

TPTB agree with briansnat. There's no point trying to change their minds about the consequences, because they have made a fundamental decision about the underlying premise. It's been done to death in the forums, repeatedly, with increasing ill-will on all sides, and the fact of the matter is that virts are considered, at best, second-class caches.

 

TPTB have floated out the possibility of moving virts into their own section, like benchmarks (and like they have discussed doing for locationless caches). This would stop the two cache types from being in direct competition, and make any arguments about whether one type was better than the other moot (from the point of view of competition for resources, anyway.) No date has been mentioned in connection with this development.

 

Until such a time, however, virtuals are all but banned, and there's no real point beating the dead horse again. If you want to place one, and really don't feel it's suitable for a multicache, be prepared to argue your point extensively and quite possibly lose.

[+geospotter]

Historical virtuals, like the ones mentioned above, may be in historical parks that do not allow traditional caches, so they can be and have been approved as virtuals.

 

I recently visited two in Concord, Mass. They were interesting and great fun.

 

Please do not blame TPTB on this one. Cachers were marking every historical marker they could find as virtuals. Some may have been interesting, but most were uninteresting, drive-up caches on the side of the road.

 

If you really want to place these sorts of 'caches' there is always this site.

 

Having said that, I do hope that virts get their own section as I feel it would be an interesting extension.

Edited January 19, 2004 by geospotter

[+NorStar]

I love the historical caches, myself. The first one I found, Historic Saxonville, a more traditional cache, had you find the coordinates of the final spot by finding numbers around the neighborhood where an old woolen mill existed. Another, Fairbanks House, is a virtual cache where you take a picture of yourself by the house (the first wood-framed house in the U.S., and is now a museum).

 

I'm too new at this to weigh in on the virtual cache thing, but, I agree with the thought that, if a virtual site is proposed, then it has to be significant or creative. Better, if someone visiting the site has to somehow do something there. For instance, at the Fairbanks House, it would be better if the person had to somehow prove that he or she took the tour of the house, rather than just take a picture of the house.

 

My two bits worth. N/S