Practical Solutions To Difficult Problems

[+tanstaafl]

While I was in the Army I worked in an Operations and Planning section. One of our rules was don't identify a problem unless you have a workable solution. I am know that the Locationless cache moratorium has been beaten to death but I am willing to run the risk of receiving wrath of the mods. Lets keep this thread limited to discussing workable solutions - not just gripes and complaints. I've noticed that most threads about this topic begin with "Somebody should fix it" and than list their demands rather than ways to fix the problem.

 

Financing- If people want locationless bad enough they will "pay to play". I recommend a fundraiser. Set up a special paypal account dedicated to raising funds for needed system upgrades to implement locationless. Example: A web page with a thermometer that shows progress. We need to raise $XX,XXX by 31 June 04. If the target goal isn't reached by that date than the money goes into the general coffers for Groundspeak system upgrades. This figure should be based on a new server, hosting and estimated bandwidth charges. Once established regular premium membership dues should cover system maintenance.

 

Server - Locationless caches should have a dedicated or separated server.

This would help to reduce bandwidth and stress on the traditional cache pages and if the locationless server crashes only a portion of Groundspeak will be down.

 

Limiting bad caches - Have one reviewer/approver for all locationless caches. This will help to cut down on the proverbial mailbox and manhole covers. Also I would recommend putting a cap on the total number of active locationless caches (i.e. 250 or 500 worldwide). Due to the cap, a system would have to be in place to ensure variety and fairness. My suggestion is that 6 months after a locationless cache is approved it is automatically archived, no late logs and the cache page would be changed to a light format (delete associated pictures).

 

Premium Members - I feel that anyone should be able to hunt and log

locationless caches but only premium members may own a locationless

cache.

 

Side note to premium membership - What about offering varying levels of

membership? i.e., standard membership = free, premium member = $30 you'll get current premium features, sponsoring member = $45 plus current premium

features and a nifty Groundspeak hatpin with the year on it and highlighted cache descriptions of sponsor member owned cache on the search pages (like online personal adds). Charter member get sponsor member benefits at $30.

 

User Interface - This is where I have lots of suggestions but am limited

but my lack of computer programming skill. Two key points. Point 1:

Allow found it logs to be sorted by date found or by location (coordinates).

Then users would be able to quickly scan and see if anything has been

logged near N37 W080 or wherever. Point 2: Do away with coordinates in

the cache description. Limit the short description to 5 keywords. For

example Title: Yellow Jeep Fever, Short Description: Yellow Jeep

Wranglers, Long Description and requirements as normal. Limit uploaded

pictures to two pics per found it log. No notes no DNFs.

 

Pocket Queries - Only one options "All Locationless That I Have Not

Found". Pocket query output will only include title, short and long

description/requirements, No logs, no coordinates. Set up pocket

queries to update bi-weekly or monthly depending on how auto-archive feature is

set up.

 

After rereading my post I realized that many of my suggestions would also work for virtuals. Now, things I need to say to prevent getting flamed; IMHO, just my$.02, edit for spelling and grammer, etc.

[+Firehouse16]

I would love to see locationless caches make a come back. I think the reviewers could weed out bad ones from good ones. I recently submitted one for approval and of course it got denied, but at the same time everyone thought it would have been a great cache, but rules are rules. Mine was moving cache, a regular size cache.

 

My theme was "It is not locationless, because wherever it is it has a location!" Well that didn't work either! LOL

 

I think it's a game and I don't see where these types of caches hurt anything. I know the arguement has been beaten to death, but if the players/payers of the want this why shouldn't we get them. Some of these locationless/virtual caches have been the funnest caches I've done, hands down!!!

[+Renegade Knight]

Locationless are no more harmful than traditionals. In all honestly I can't see why there were put into a moratorum to begin with. What I can see is the benifit of having a separate section like benchamarks have for both locationless and virtuals.

[+Firehouse16]

I just wish there was a way to move this forward, I see more people wanting them than not. And I don't care what anyone says doing most virtuals/locationless caches requires a GPS more so than some regular caches I've done. We need like a survey or some type of poll.

[CoyoteRed]

Quite frankly, learning to program in PHP/MySQL isn't that hard. If someone really wanted to create a site, they could.

 

I got tired of a situation I didn't like so I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Look for it soon

 

In fact, I could program in a way for locationlesses to work. I can program it to spit out a list of all locations found to date and more. It's not a priority of mine, but it can be done.

 

Not only that, but my solution is designed to be inherently expandable and flexible. Built from the ground up to use templates, folks will be able to "skin" their pages to suit themselves. Plus, being open to peer review, I will also welcome feedback and suggestions. (Maybe, even a real programmer to straighten out my nasty code!)

 

All it takes is someone who gets fed up enough to really do something.

[+Stunod]

While I was in the Army I worked in an Operations and Planning section. One of our rules was don't identify a problem unless you have a workable solution.

Thank God you didn't get into medicine.

Edited March 20, 2004 by Stunod

[+IV_Warrior]

We need like a survey or some type of poll.

If I'm remembering correctly there WAS a poll done, and that led directly to the moratorium.

[CoyoteRed]

If memory serves part of the reason for the moratorium was we were fast approaching the limit of the numbering scheme in use and there weren't enough approvers.

 

So, to slow the march to rollover and to get regular caches approved faster the moratorium was put in place. Neither are problems at present as far as I know.

[+Prime Suspect]

While I was in the Army I worked in an Operations and Planning section. One of our rules was don't identify a problem unless you have a workable solution.

Thank God you didn't get into medicine.

Yeah, I had a hard time getting past that second sentence, too. That's one of the worst "rules" I've ever heard of.

[+Prime Suspect]

If memory serves part of the reason for the moratorium was we were fast approaching the limit of the numbering scheme in use and there weren't enough approvers.

 

So, to slow the march to rollover and to get regular caches approved faster the moratorium was put in place. Neither are problems at present as far as I know.

I believe it had more to do with it finally dawning that taking a picture of your GPS isn't geocaching!

[+Firehouse16]

I believe it had more to do with it finally dawning that taking a picture of your GPS isn't geocaching!

 

Well then explain the moratorium on moving caches where you do need a GPS?

[+bons]

Well then explain the moratorium on moving caches where you do need a GPS?

I belive those were stopped because there was no control over where the locationless was placed. The location was out of the hands of the owner/maintainer and the admin of the site.

 

This cache seems to illustrate the problem nicely, unfortunately.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I believe it had more to do with it finally dawning that taking a picture of your GPS isn't geocaching!

Locationless are as much geocaching as anything else on here I've seen.

Isn't the essence of geocaching finding someTHING someWHERE?

Locationless fit in quite nicely.

 

 

On topic:

 

'Limiting bad caches - Have one reviewer/approver for all locationless

caches. This will help to cut down on the proverbial mailbox and

manhole covers. Also I would recommend putting a cap on the total

number of active locationless caches (i.e. 250 or 500 worldwide).

Due to the cap, a system would have to be in place to ensure variety

and fairness. My suggestion is that 6 months after a locationless

cache is approved it is automatically archived, no late logs and the

cache page would be changed to a light format (delete associated

pictures).'

 

I think this is pretty reasonable and could be done with the existing software.

They could be limited to a certain number of finds also, say 500.

The part in bold (added by me) I don't like so much, sometimes it is fun to go back and look at the pictures of the ones that were found.

[+tanstaafl]

While I was in the Army I worked in an Operations and Planning section. One of our rules was don't identify a problem unless you have a workable solution.

Thank God you didn't get into medicine.

Yeah, I had a hard time getting past that second sentence, too. That's one of the worst "rules" I've ever heard of.

Out of context it does sound odd. My description was an over-simplification. What that "rule" did was to cut down on B.S. and gripes. It also helped to develop decision making and problem solving skills in junior employees. It wasn't a rule but a sugguestion that encourages the individual to think and colaborate with their peer group instead of just going to the boss and complaining about something.

 

Oh and speaking of medicine is it bad bedside manner for the doctor to say "You have cancer. You're gonna die" or would it be better to say " You have been diagnosed with cancer and these are your treatment options..."

 

THESE ARE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS. PLEASE DON'T TAKE THIS THREAD OFF TOPIC AGAIN. (or I'll type in all caps some more)

[+nostrada]

I dislike the idea of having only 2 pictures attached to a LC. OK, I am guilty of the occasional drive-by shooting as well, but for some locationless caches the fun is more than just one phat GPS shot and a blurry shot of the target. Look at the Nike cache - there are some awesome pictures there.

 

But then again - the majority of logs have only one or two pictures right now anyway - so is there really a need to limit it?

[+bons]

Limiting bad caches - Have one reviewer/approver for all locationless caches.  This will help to cut down on the proverbial mailbox and manhole covers.  Also I would recommend putting a cap on the total number of active locationless caches (i.e. 250 or 500 worldwide).  Due to the cap, a system would have to be in place to ensure variety and fairness.  My suggestion is that 6 months after a locationless cache is approved it is automatically archived, no late logs and the cache page would be changed to a light format (delete associated pictures).

This is where you get me. After I've agreed to pay more for the server to host my locationless cache you suggest that we set limits that may either:

1) Prevent my cache from being listed

2) Forcibly remove my cache after 6 months.

Since the locationless cache I would like to do involves a set of statues done for charity (J Doe Project) that change yearly (new statues built and placed around town in new locations as the old ones are auctioned off), the removal seems to contrary to the concept. As far as I can see the removal simply has to do with limiting the webspace usage, which, last I checked I was paying extra for anyway.

Limit uploaded pictures to two pics per found it log.  No notes no DNFs.

What's the price point for getting rid of these limitations?

 

What I didn't see was the guidelines for which an approver decides that a cache is a "bad" cache. Since you're proposing that a certain level of pay is required in order to place a locationless cache, taking someone's money and then refusing to let them place the locationless of their choice doesn't sound like a good move for a listing service.

Edited March 21, 2004 by bons

[+Prime Suspect]

I believe it had more to do with it finally dawning that taking a picture of your GPS isn't geocaching!

 

Well then explain the moratorium on moving caches where you do need a GPS?

Easy. There isn't one.

A moratorium is a temporary suspension. Moving caches are banned. The only ones out there are the one that were grandfathered in when the rules changed.

 

Moving caches are an interesting idea, but in practice, they have problems that can't readily be overcome.

 

And even it they weren't permanently banned, so what? You're assuming that everything that's suspended is done so for only one reason?

Edited March 21, 2004 by Prime Suspect

[+Prime Suspect]

I believe it had more to do with it finally dawning that taking a picture of your GPS isn't geocaching!

Locationless are as much geocaching as anything else on here I've seen.

Isn't the essence of geocaching finding someTHING someWHERE?

No, it isn't.

 

"The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches."

[lowracer]

Moving caches are an interesting idea, but in practice, they have problems that can't readily be overcome.

I see this mentioning of insurmountable problems with moving caches here on the boards pretty frequently. It's often quoted as fact that moving caches will cause the end of geocaching as we know it.

 

As a data point to consider, GCCF79 "The Rock That Rolls" http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCCF79, was nominated for the "Funniest Cache," voted as both the "Most Innovative Cache," and the "Cacher's Choice - Favorite Cache Overall" in Austin for 2003.

 

It's a moving cache that has had none of the problems that people claim will plague moving caches. Moving caches can be done and they in practice and in fact do not have the problems that people claim will cause the sky to fall.

 

I can't say that all moving caches will be as well received and problem free as The Rock That Rolls, but to unconditionally condemn all moving caches as having insurmountable problems is wrong.

 

I have two moving caches of my own (listed on a much less frequently visited and admittedly vastly inferior competing site), and they also have had none of the problems commonly attributed to moving caches.

 

Perhaps it's an Austin thing, but I doubt it. Properly done, a moving cache can not only work well, but be a heck of a lot of fun to boot.

 

-mark.

[Keystone]

A primary reason for the locationless cache moratorium (but not the only reason) was the difficulty that the cache reviewers were having with the locationless submissions. The reviewer would write an archive note saying "Sorry, but [fire hydrants / phone booths/ etc.] are far too common an item to be listed as a locationless cache" and then there would be a long series of scathing e-mails from the disappointed cache owner. They were consuming an inordinate amount of time and distracting from other reviewer duties.

 

I am not speaking officially for all of the volunteer reviewers, but based on discussions we've had in our own forum, I can state fairly confidently that the reviewers would prefer a locationless cache listing system that did NOT depend on a volunteer reviewer passing subjective judgment about whether an item was "too common" or "cool enough".

 

If anyone has constructive ideas on a better means for screening locationless caches, feel free to post them. One alternative, for example, is to list everything and leave it to the marketplace to filter through the good ones and the bad ones. If locationless "finds" are listed separately from geocache finds in a new website section, would people care that a fire hydrant or a phone booth was listed as an available cache target? (These two examples are real submissions, by the way.)

[WH]

LC's are a different animal from regular caches. It doesnt matter where the owner of the listing is from, the cache can be logged anywhere in the country, and in some cases, anywhere in the world.

 

Since LC's are open to such a wide cacher base, why not setup some kind of voting scheme. You could list all locationless caches submitted for approval and only the one ones who get a certain number or percentage of votes gets officially listed.

 

This way, approvers are not overwhelmed by the number of LC requests, nor are they flamed for not approving lame ones.

 

Just a thought.

[Keystone]

A voting system has indeed been discussed previously. One question is, who would be eligible to vote? There is a certain percentage of the community who despise locationless caches and would always vote "no", just out of spite. (But query if this spite would evaporate if locationless caches weren't "geocaches" but rather were listed in a separate section?) There would be another group who would vote "yes" for everything, just to have something to log. Should there be an eligibility requirement, like you have to have logged X locationless finds in order to eligible to vote in a poll about a new submission?

[WH]

Heres a possible scenario.

 

Once a week, a list of all LC's that have been submitted for approval is posted on the website. Each person is allowed to vote for one. Those who dont approve of LC's would just simply not vote.

 

Only the LC's who receive a certain number of votes would be listed and the others are denied. If none of the LC's in the poll get the minimum number of votes, then they ALL would get denied.

 

Again, just trying to be helpful.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

"The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches."

Hmm.... so someTHING is hidden someWHERE and people try to find it...

Sound quite a bit like finding someTHING someWHERE to me....

 

But as the original poster requested, this is not the time or place to discuss semantics.

 

On topic: I think a single approver would work better than voting. Possibly rotate the duty between the current approvers. Getting different approvers doing it would get more than a single perspective on it.

 

Maybe a list could be kept and passed on to the next approver and they can pick which ones get approved as the old ones expire after meeting the time or found limit. What if the limit was time and finds- 6 months or 500 finds say. The limited time the cache would be available would not keep the dogs around forever then.

 

There may very well be times when a phone booth (the old closed in type- not too common now) or a fire hydrant (sometimes they get painted to look like a person...clown etc.) might not make TOO bad of a locationless.

Edited March 22, 2004 by Corp Of Discovery

[+Prime Suspect]

"The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches."

Hmm.... so someTHING is hidden someWHERE and people try to find it...

Sound quite a bit like finding someTHING someWHERE to me....

Yes, it does. Especially when you conveniently leave out everything that doesn't fit your scenario. Such as "GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches."

[+Corp Of Discovery]

"The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches."

Hmm.... so someTHING is hidden someWHERE and people try to find it...

Sound quite a bit like finding someTHING someWHERE to me....

Yes, it does. Especially when you conveniently leave out everything that doesn't fit your scenario. Such as "GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches."

Sorry was adding to original post....

 

I was not 'conveniently' leaving anything out. That is covered under 'and people try to find it'.

[+WeBeDnD]

For the record, I love Locationless caches.

 

I'm in favor of continuing Locationless caches based simply on these points:

- They provide me a broader opportunity to learn of places and things I did not know of. This is one significant reason I got into the sport of Geocaching.

- I DO, in fact, use my GPSr to find and visit places of interest by using the coordinates from Locationless logs submitted by other cachers. To me, these places of interest are as much geocache targets as any of the 'traditional' containers with logbooks.

- I am unlikely to have many opportunities to visit many other states, let alone other countries. But with Locationless cacheing, I can at least gain a more worldly view. Through Locationless cacheing, I have the opportunity to connect with other cachers in other parts of the country and the world.

 

What I'd personally be willing to do to support the continuation of Locationless cacheing:

 

- As a user, I'd be willing to pay an extra membership fee above the premium (say <=$5) to be a Locationless Cacher. [i feel there is enough value in Locationless cacheing to pay a bit more for it.]

 

- I'm ok with using a separate web server/portal to do Locationless cacheing (just like the Benchmarks pages are separate.) I'd be satisified with Locationless cache policies like: a maximum of 2 photos per log, one log per cacher per Locationless cache, and a maximum life of each Locationless cache (6 months?). [i do understand the very real problems associated with cost buying and maintaining of servers, disk space, databases, etc.]

 

- I'd be willing to pay for the privelege of 'owning' a Locationless cache (say <=$5 per cache) for a fixed period of time (6 months?) or when a maximum number of logs (200?) are reached, whichever comes first. I'd accept that when those maximums were met, the cache would be automatically archived. [i personally would not pay to create a cache for collecting photos and locations of 'ordinary/banal/too-common' things, so maybe those types of caches will be self-limiting by the mere fact that someone would have to pay for creating a Locationless cache.]

 

- I'd accept a requirement for me to log in on at least a monthly basis and maintain (aka 'review and clean up') my cache and it's contents. If I did not log in, I'd accept that my cache would get archived automatically. [i have heard from others that unmaintained caches, low quality photos, questionable 'found-it' claims, out-of-topic 'found-it' claims, etc. are a big point of dissatisfaction, and these problems annoy me also.]

 

- I'd agree that my Locationless cache would be subject to a peer acceptance review before approval, conducted during a (say 14 day?) "peer review period." If, at the end of the review period, I did not receive at least a 50% acceptance (based on a tally of one 'accept it' or 'reject it' vote per paid Locationless cacher who votes if they wish), then it would be rejected and I'd have to try again with a more 'acceptable' cache concept. If it did not pass peer review, a Groundspeak person would never have to even look at it. I would also accept that a Groundspeak appointed person would still need to review it once it passed peer review to assure that Groundspeak criteria are met. The appointed Groundspeak person would still have ultimate approval or rejection authority (just as in any other type of cache.) [i understand Groundspeak has an image it wishes to maintain, and the cost of reviewing caches is very real. I also understand that dealing with complaints is too often a thankless job, and no one should be subjected to it. We can relieve the admins & volunteers of this unpleasant task by spreading it out to the voting Locationless cacheing community. Let those who have put skin in the game use their votes to do most of this unpleasant task. It is their satisfaction that matters after all, so let them vote for what they want and don't want.]

 

- I'd also agree to accept and act on feedback regarding my Locationless cache from other Locationless cachers on an ongoing basis regarding how well I am managing the contents of my cache page & the logs. I'd agree that if the cumulative feedback score (one ongoing feedback vote of 'Acceptably maintained = 1' or 'Not Acceptably Maintained = 0' per Locationless cacher per Locationless cache,) resulted in an overall cumulative <0.5 rating for more than one month, my cache would also be automatically archived. I would expect that a text block be included for explaining the votes. [This would provide incentive for me to maintain my cache in a way that would satisfy the Locationless cacheing community at large. I might even learn something in the process of getting feedback.]

 

I realize that the above will require some work on Groundspeak's part to implement a system for paying for Locationless cacheing and processing the acceptance & satisfaction ratings. These actions seem to me to be worth the effort for both Graoundspeak and anyone who wants to do Locationless cacheing. I'd appreciate the decision makers at Groundspeak at least considering my suggestions, and I'll appreciate the critical review of others regarding what I've said. In the end, my interest is only in doing whatever it takes to keep Locationless cacheing alive and well.

[+paintfiction]

I like locationless because they are fun. It doesn't hurt my ego that my locationless finds are not "pure" geocaches by the definition of the anti-locationless crowd or anyone else's definition. They are fun. If you don't like them - don't play. Ditto for virtuals. I have spent many enjoyable hours tracking down some tidbit to log a virtual or locationless. I have also spent 7 seconds pulling a film container from behind a phone booth. Both earned me exactly 1 smiley. The example I give illustrates that the style of hunt is not the problem - it's the QUALITY that makes a difference. Let's UP the quality of the hunt. DO I hate micros? not at all - just make them fun!

 

BTW..... in answer to the flamers: yes I did log the Yellow Jeep and no I did not log the US flag. I will log the flag locationless - but my log will have some meaning to me - not just a flag in someone's yard. I haven't found *THE* flag yet.

 

Regarding $$$, I made a similar suggestion a while back when the stats war was going on. I don't mind paying for features. geocaching.com is a bargain! Thank you Jeremy! Just don't be shy about offering some additional features for those who want to PAY! I don't mind paying for all the enjoyment I get from geocaching. To the $$$ whiners: I'm just a poor working class schmo and you probably make more than me so zip it. There is no free lunch.

 

Flame on,

 

Jim

[+tanstaafl]

I would like to thank those of you who are giving well thought out replies and not just knee-jerk reactions. My intent is to close this thread on Sunday, 28 March. Anyone else with thought and ideas - please share.

[+travisl]

Once a week, a list of all LC's that have been submitted for approval is posted on the website. Each person is allowed to vote for one. Those who dont approve of LC's would just simply not vote.

 

Only the LC's who receive a certain number of votes would be listed and the others are denied. If none of the LC's in the poll get the minimum number of votes, then they ALL would get denied.

I'd need to submit my 'blue jeeps' cache every week, over and over again then.

[+Renegade Knight]

My solution is simple.

 

Don't make subjective decisinons. A box in the woods isn't held to the light of subjective cache aesthetics. Don't even try for locationless or virtuals. If they fail under the sheer weight of how lame they are thats evolution.

[targetdrone]

I like locationless caches, even though I have only 'found' two. Actually, I have found others, but did not have my GPS and camera with me at the time. But still, it made me think about caching and made me want to do it right then. But each time, I still smiled and thought about caching. Don't stop them. If someone doesn't want to do them, they don't have to. There are muggles who don't like geocaching...PERIOD and would stop us from doing it if they could by getting rid of all of them. Would you want them to do that to you? Leave them be.

 

targetdrone

Edited March 28, 2004 by targetdrone

[Parsa]

A locationless success story:

 

My cache known as The Bells of El Camino Real has been successful in finding over 80 of the famed guidepost bells in California. There should be more than approximately 380 existing guidepost bells, first placed in 1906 by the California Federation of Women's Clubs and the Daughters of the Golden West marking the route of the Spanish Royal Road. The exact location of many of these bells is unknown, and we are providing that service.

 

One particular success was when my contact from the original California Bell Company (which still manufactures reproduction guidepost bells for organizations to place) became a geocacher.

 

I feel very happy that my cache can provide a service to historians, teachers, and those travelling California's famous El Camino Real. Like most things, any geocache can be bad or good, but sometimes we have to live with the bad to get the good.

 

Parsa

[+Marky]

Moving caches are an interesting idea, but in practice, they have problems that can't readily be overcome.

Properly done, a moving cache can not only work well, but be a heck of a lot of fun to boot.

 

-mark.

I've only seen one moving cache that didn't have the problem of searching for a cache that wasn't there. This one you mention isn't it. Maybe you like looking for something that isn't there, but I don't. Fortunately, I've found all the moving caches in our area, so they never show up on my list anymore.

 

The cache you refered to assumes that all geocachers will pick an "appropriate" hiding spot for its next location. In most cases common sense prevails, but there is nothing to stop someone from hiding the cache near an active railway, for example, and there are no safety checks. Maybe if you were to submit your new coords to the cache owner, and then he acts like an approver and checks to see if the placement is valid before allowing the find, maybe that might help some. I've seen first time cachers find on move moving caches. Do you really think they know what is and isn't appropriate after only one find?

 

--Marky

[+Prime Suspect]

It's a moving cache that has had none of the problems that people claim will plague moving caches.

You're joking, right? Have you actually looked at the logs?

 

Problem - cache not a listed coordinates.

Logs - log log log log log

 

Problem - owner not in control of location.

Logs - log log log log

 

Well, I could go on and on. And that's from only looking at about a quarter of the most recent logs.

[+HeyRob4449]

For the record, I love Locationless caches.

 

I'm in favor of continuing Locationless caches based simply on these points:.....

I agree! I would gladly go along with all of these suggestions, they are well thought out and seem a good solution to the "Problem". Why is it that when a few people don't like something they have to belittle or degrade it? If you don't like to do locationless caches, then don't do them!

 

Personally I have learned a lot of things in the last year from "Locationless Caches" (Like every state has a liberty bell, or that many US cities have an 8 foot replica Statue of Liberty) that I never would have learned from finding an ammo box in the woods. I have more locationless finds than traditional ones and most where a lot harder to claim than that next altoids tin under a picnic table!

[+HeyRob4449]

First "Flood control" Then a double post, sorry!

Edited March 30, 2004 by HeyRob4449

[+tanstaafl]

In closing this thread I would like to say that opinions on locationless caches run the full spectrum. There are those who enjoy them and would be willing to support them financially. There are also those who would have them completely done away because "thats not geocaching". To those people I would like to say that the forward pass was not always a part of football.