Locationless Cache

[+GEM Team]

How do I start a Location Less Cache? There is no discription for it in the cache descriptions... Or does the approver do this...?

[+Stunod]

Locationless caches are not currently being accepted

 

From the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines

 

Reverse Virtual (Locationless Caches)

 

Locationless caches are a variation of virtual caches, but with no specific location to visit.  Instead, the cache hunter is instructed to search for an object that meets certain criteria and report its coordinates.  Many times the seeker is also asked to provide an original photograph of the location to provide proof of visitation.

 

In the future these will have their own section, but currently there is a moratorium on new locationless caches.

Edited May 3, 2004 by Stunod

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Locationless caches are not currently being accepted

 

From the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines

 

Reverse Virtual (Locationless Caches)

 

Locationless caches are a variation of virtual caches, but with no specific location to visit.  Instead, the cache hunter is instructed to search for an object that meets certain criteria and report its coordinates.  Many times the seeker is also asked to provide an original photograph of the location to provide proof of visitation.

 

In the future these will have their own section, but currently there is a moratorium on new locationless caches.

Much to my dismay

[+Semper Questio]

I had read that part of the issue with locationless caches is the amount of storage all those pics take up. Well, last night, after a fun afternoon of locationless hunting, I was thinking about this and thought of a way this could be resolved and, possibly, help a bit with funding.

 

Make the photos for verification work the same as emails for virtuals. You send the photos to the cache owner and they in turn tell you you can log it. Then, if they want to post the pics of their locationless finds, they can do so on their own website and link to it on their cache page. This would serve 2 purposes. 1 - reduce the photo storage requirements. 2 - Encourage only those folks that really want to maintain these caches to do so due to the added work of having to verify them.

 

Now, here's the funding part. By default, do not allow photos to be attached to locationless cache log entries. However, make an added cost option to buy 'x' amount of storage space to support your cache and gc.com can host your photos in your logs. This could even be incremental (pay more to get more space) and part of the process would be once the space gets full, the older pics get automatically trashed unless the cache owner opts to pay for more space. If the owner lets their space subscription expire, all the pics get trashed.

 

Of course there is some application development and accounting issues that would have to be worked out, but these are a couple of ways to help get locationless caches back in gear.

 

Also, to aid in controlling these caches and keep them from getting out of hand I think locationless caches should be reviewed prior to activation (don't know if they were before or not) just to be sure they are not set up to find common objects. After all, what's the point of doing a cache to find something that most people pass several times a day? They should all involve some amount of effort.

 

I yield the floor. SOryy for being so long-winded!

[+bons]

Also, to aid in controlling these caches and keep them from getting out of hand I think locationless caches should be reviewed prior to activation (don't know if they were before or not) just to be sure they are not set up to find common objects.

And there's the rub. What's a "common" object? Is a fire hydrant painted to look like something else common or uncommon? Some items are obviously limited. (The Merci Train locactionless cache leaps to mind) but how many tractors with steel wheels are still in use?

 

Remember. Whenever an approver says "no, that's too common" they run the usual risk of flames, public insults, and the occasional "I'm going to steal every cache until you give in" response. I can understand them deciding it's just not worth the pain.

[+Semper Questio]

Goo dpoint. Those kinds of issues would have to be resolved and put in writing as much as possible, within reason. Perosnally, I would say (using your example) just a repainted common object would not qualify. After all, painted fire hydrants aren't that big of a deal. Of course, that doesn't draw a definitive line. Let's face it, a mural is just a painted wall, but Wyalnd's painted walls are pretty remarkable as are many other murals around the world.

 

Perhaps it's about time the GC.com afforded the cache approvers some degree of anonymity/flame protection to enable them to do their job. Perhaps some volunteer appellate approvers? Geeze this can get complicated!

[+astrojr1&GGGal]

Sometimes, a collection of objects is of greater value than an individual object. I see this as the true worth of locationlesses. A painted fire hydrant is just that, maybe a cool or not-so-cool neighborhood landmark. But a few hundred of them is maybe something worth browsing through, despite the odd or not-so-odd lame object. Technology allows us to overcome lameness with ease; just skip it!

 

The "virtual coffee table book" concept is really the true intent of LC's, right? Even Yellow Jeep was fun, not because I really dig yellow jeeps, but the COLLECTION was undeniably the source of much mirth and new relationships. To us THAT's what LC's are all about.

 

Having said that our LC to "regular" caches ratio is about 1:60. But it sure is fun looking through all the LC logs and galleries.

 

____________________________________________________________________

Knock y'self out!

[Keystone]

Perhaps it's about time the GC.com afforded the cache approvers some degree of anonymity/flame protection to enable them to do their job. Perhaps some volunteer appellate approvers? Geeze this can get complicated!

You need to read the many forum topics complaining about volunteer reviewers who use separate accounts for that work. Or talk to some of the people who seem obsessed with figuring out the true identities of the reviewers. I got so tired of trying to keep it a secret, with limited success, that I finally gave up.

 

There are already four avenues of appeal from decisions made by a volunteer reviewer:

 

1. Ask again, and this time offer additional facts that weren't conveyed to the reviewer initially, and/or adjust the cache to meet the reviewer's concerns.

2. Ask that the reviewer post the cache for discussion in our private forum. That is how we "keep on the same page" with caches that push the edges of one or more of the listing guidelines. (Note that if the issue with your cache is already well-settled, there is no guarantee that the reviewer will post it for comment by the other volunteers.)

3. Write an e-mail to the approvers at geocaching dot com e-mail address to describe any problem you may be having with one of the volunteers.

4. Post a topic here in the forums.

 

Sorry for being a bit off-topic. Back to the discussion of locationless caches: it is true that a moratorium remains in effect, and that a lot of the reason for the moratorium was due to the amount of back and forth debate between the reviewer and the cache owner about whether a category of items met the guidelines for a locationless cache. Hopefully, this type of geolocational gaming will make a return to this site someday, once a better solution is developed for this unique category of waypointing. Or, someone else will come along to offer that better solution.