One Webcam, Two Listings?

[+Jamie Z]

I have a question I wanted to bring up to the masses before I bring this up to our local approver. Of course, he may or may not read this anyway, but that's ok.

 

There are two webcam listings in downtown Memphis:

Beale Street Blues

This Bud's For You

 

According to the gc.com search, the coordinates are 0.1mi apart.

 

The thing is, it's the same camera. If you look at the listings, the same webpage is referenced, and the instructions one each cache page is word-for-word identical.

 

I have done one of the webcams. I know the area well. The camera is located on the roof of a building and points in several different directions at one- or two-minute intervals. The locations posted for these webcams are opposite ends of the same block. In addition, there is a physical cache on the same street just one block further.

 

Is that allowed? I'm not cache nazi, but I sure don't want Memphis to be inundated with listings just for the sake of it.

 

It seems to me that the proximity rule should apply here.

 

Could I make webcam listings for the other three or four directions in which the camera points?

 

Thoughts?

 

Jamie

[+Ambrosia]

Whoops.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Interesting. I dont see a problem. If you can find another spot .1 away from the existing caches where you can get yet another photo from the same camera, why not? i do notice that these caches don't meet the current listing requirement: "When submitting a webcam cache you must submit a photo of yourself taken by the webcam used for the listing as an example to show that the images will be identifiable. If you request that the geocacher hold their GPS up overhead when the photo is taken, then please have your GPS held over your head in the example photo. " I dont know when that requirement was added.

[+sbell111]

I don't see the problem either. Each webcam cache requires you to go to a different location to make the find. These locations are far enough apart that the distance guideline is not violated. The only thing they have in common is that one must go to the same webpage to log them.

 

In my mind, there is no difference between this and having two cameras in two locations, but both are referenced from the same webpage.

[+Mr Lost]

Could I make webcam listings for the other three or four directions in which the camera points?

 

Thoughts?

Go for it! I would calculate an arc for the furthest points that can be seen from the webcam such that you can get the greatest number of 'caches from this camera. It could be 'the cache camera'...

 

Well, you did ask for thoughts. You should have specified 'good' thoughts.

[Max Cacher]

Jamie Z, the cache met all of the guidelines including the 528 foot guideline, go down town and with a tape and check it out.

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

[+Bartster]

Jamie Z . . . go down town and with a tape and check it out.

 

Max Cacher

Hey Jamie,

 

I have a pocket ruler you could measure it with!

 

Bartster

[+BigDaddyD]

Personally I was surprized two webcam caches on the same webcam on the same street were approved, but I am not an approver. This R.A.S.H. (Recreation, Activity, Sport, Hobby) that we all participate in can be played in many different ways by many different people. Maybe some people will enjoy finding one webcam cache and walking 500 ft and loging another cache on the same webcam. That's allright with me!

[+Jamie Z]

the cache met all of the guidelines including the 528 foot guideline, go down town and with a tape and check it out.

Is it that close? Close enough that a tape measure is required?

 

To me, the cache saturation guideline is in place to keep caches from being dumped on top of each other. To help ensure that each cache hunt is distinct.

 

These two caches, or more specifically, the newest one, I think defies the spirit of that guideline. It doesn't provide a new caching experience at all. It's the same place. The same camera... just a minute or two walk down the sidewalk.

 

I mean, you don't even have to make a separate phone call to a friend to help you log it. You just tell the guy on the other end, "Hey, wait a minute so I can walk down here and log another find."

 

Alas, I seem to be in the minority among the cache reviewer and my peers on this subject. All I can do is shake my head and wonder what the enjoyment is over listing an out-of-town webcam that someone has already done.

 

Jamie

[+TeamK-9]

*Crocodile dundee voice* " 'ello folks. Today, we're looking at the rare and elusive cache guideline loophole. It's a wild one, but it works like a little charm."

 

*end crocodile dundee voice*

 

Seriously, it looks like it was placed fair and square.

 

But I guess this brings up the debate of whether the distance rule should apply to cameras or the place the cameras take the picture...

[+Spencersb]

I'm with you Jamie. But it apparently meets minimum guidelines, and some folks like that stuff, so .

 

I'm sure some folks don't like some of my hides, and there's plenty around that I don't care for, so y'all hunt what make you happy, and I'll do the same.

 

The RASH would be better off, however, if before hiding a cache folks asked themselves:

 

Why do I want to put a cache here?

 

What are people going to see when they get here?

 

What can they get here that they can't get 528 feet away?

 

Just my $.02, keep the change.

[Max Cacher]

I wish there was a guideline where different folks could not place light pole caches every 528 feet, but there is not, so get over it.

 

As long as its within the posted guidelines its my job as a reviewer to approve it

 

Don’t think anyone would want it any other way

 

Just about everyone has a different idea what the sprit of the game is and they play that way, and that’s OK by me and should be OK with you, but if not request changes to adjust the way someone else wants to play, that is your right to judge and force your views on them, but that in itself does not change the guidelines

 

I am just ducky swimming around out here is the big pond of life having a blast .

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

Edited April 8, 2005 by Max Cacher

[+Jamie Z]

so get over it. 

Um.. I am over it. I hope I conveyed that in my last message.

 

I wasn't necessarily questioning the cache saturation guideline, but rather the interpretation of the guideline.

 

I felt it was reasonable to think that one interpretation of that guideline is that webcam listings could not use the same camera, as that is, in effect, the same location.

 

Does that mean I am judging and forcing my views on someone? I don't appreciate the negative insinuation. I came here to hear the views of others.

 

Again, I accept that the listing was approved, and also that a number of people have said that this seemed ok to them. I can't think of any other points which I can add to the discussion.

 

Jamie

Edited April 8, 2005 by Jamie Z

[+Renegade Knight]

One Webcam, One Cache. Stand wherever you want for your pic. That's my intrepretation.

 

I would not however archive one or the other because they were approved and it's a done deal. However I don't think you are advocating that.

Edited April 8, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+Tonsil]

I agree, having 2 webcam caches like that is utterly stupid. It doesn't even matter if theres an applicable rule or not - it's just lame. Worse yet, it looks like the second 'hider' ripped off the description as well. Weak.

[+Sagefox]

I'm not cache nazi, but I sure don't want Memphis to be inundated with listings just for the sake of it.

This doesn't appear to be a realistic concern. How many cameras are actually out there that can cover a 528' diameter of space open to the public? How many of those will be found by geocachers? How many geocachers will go to the trouble of posting a second cache for any one of these that happen to already have a cam cache?

 

It seems to me that the proximity rule should apply here.

 

A proximity rule is a general concept that needs to have a specific rule only for the purpose of keeping subjective arguements at bay. What difference would it really make if the second cam cache were a container cache instead? Still two posted sets of coordinates, still 528' apart.

 

Could I make webcam listings for the other three or four directions in which the camera points?

 

Yes, if you can convince the local approver to list it. The approver, however, should be allowed to say no if they decide that they no longer feel comfortable with the concept.

 

Thoughts?

 

...This mulitiple cache/one cam concept might or might not be acceptable in the future. Geocaching is, after all, an experiment.

 

...Raising the issue here of validity of this concept is good for a point of discussion.

 

...Cache density does not appear to be a valid concern.

 

"...don't want Memphis to be inundated with listings just for the sake of it." Are you proposing a new policy that caches can't be placed "just for the sake of it"?

 

...My guess, without looking at either cam cache page, is that many finders have and will enjoy the two cam caches close together.

[+Riddlers]

I wish there was a guideline where different folks could not place light pole caches every 528 feet, but there is not, so get over it. 

 

As long as its within the posted guidelines its my job as a reviewer to approve it

Wow, that would be very discouraging. Walmart has 15light posts in one parking lot that have that distance.

Edited April 8, 2005 by Riddlers

[+Sagefox]

I agree, having 2 webcam caches like that is utterly stupid. It doesn't even matter if theres an applicable rule or not - it's just lame.

One person's lame can be another person's fun.

 

We will need to be more specific if we want policy to change regarding "lame" caches. The approves have enough headaches as it is. I would not want to be in the shoes of an approver who rejects a cache because it appeared to be lame.

[+Tonsil]

I wasn't trying to suggest that we chould change policy to try and eliminate cache lameness. That's obviously only my opinion, and you can't start regulating caches on opinion. I don't think a refined set of guidelines is an answer. However, just because a cache is technically legal doesn't make it a good idea. I feel that having two caches from the same webcam is really dumb. I would be remiss if I did not publicly ridicule this foolishness. Perhaps if enough people agree with my opinion, we can shame the hider in question into archiving the cache, and we will have effectively self-regulated without adding more rules to the books.

[+Scoobie10]

Alas, I seem to be in the minority among the cache reviewer and my peers on this subject.

 

I'll join you in that minority. I do believe that there is something to be said for the spirit of the guideline. This seems wrong. Okay, "wrong" might not be the proper word here. Lets use; This seems goofy. I like the idea of one cam, one listing. Frankly, I'm suprised that we are in the minority.

 

Scoob

[+Sagefox]

I would be remiss if I did not publicly ridicule this foolishness. Perhaps if enough people agree with my opinion, we can shame the hider in question into archiving the cache, and we will have effectively self-regulated without adding more rules to the books.

I am of two minds on this point. I agree that there are many lame caches but what can be done about it is far from clear to me. (I personally don't think the example in this topic qualifies as lame.)

 

We can't change cacher behavior on a grand scale through the forums because the percentage of cachers visiting the forums is too low. This topic, though, is a good one because it presents the idea and some will pick it up and choose not duplicate the double cam concept. I have archived most of my virtuals because of forum discussions. Not because they were lame but because, in almost every instance, a container cache could be placed nearby. But the discussions did bring the condition and new rules to my attention.

 

To use your negative behavior modification approach to make sweeping changes in cache placing you would have to do it at the local level. I have seen the results in various localities of people ridiculing and shaming other people's caches and it has not been pretty. It is a tricky business to separate constructive criticism from an initial emotional response.

 

Perhaps a more effective approach would be to place quality caches nearby as an example. The game should be fun.

 

Edit typos.

Edited April 9, 2005 by Team Sagefox

[+Marky]

We had a webcam cache once that was a multi-cam-cache (the only one of its kind that I know of). Unfortunately, the cam got removed.

 

Basically, like you said, the cam pointed at various angles periodically. Our cam pointed 4 different angles/locations. You had to get your picture in all four locations to log the find. I think there were only two finders while it was up because it took a LONG time to get them all (like over an hour if you were unlucky with your timing as this camera updated every 7 minutes or so).

 

--Marky

[+blazerfan]

I'm not sure I see anything wrong with it... sure it uses the same cam but they are different locations. Lets face it... every webcam cache is the same... you stand there... you call someone... you wait... you log a find. Its all on if you enjoy it... and I know I would

[+LSUMonica]

Wooo I made it in the Geocaching world!!! One of my caches is being argued in the forums!!!

 

To set the record straight on some of the issues...

 

The original camera shot Beale Street Blues was placed in October 2004. I was actually surprised that no one that lived in Memphis had placed a cache using this camera. So when I was on one of my visits to Memphis (I NOW live just west of Nashville but I was travelling there from Louisiana before) I grabbed the coordinates of this came and followed the rules for submission. At that time I noticed that another webcam cache could be made from the shot about .1 miles down the road. I did NOT submit that webcam cache from that shot as I thought that others should have the opportunity to have a webcam cache as well.

 

I heard through the grapevine (so this may or not be true but JamieZ did also allude to it in his log of this cache) that many of the locals boycotted this cache because it was submitted by an "out-of-towner". And 90% of the logs on this cache have been summitted by those that live outside of Memphis proper.

 

Now 6 months later, no local cacher had claimed a cache on the only other shot on the webcam that provided the detail outlined in the cache submission guidelines -- yes, I do read them -- so when friends were in Memphis caching for the weekend and called me to take there picture I personally was the one who told them about the potential for another webcacm down the street. The cache owner of the new cache This Bud's for You took the new coordinates properly and I grabbed a picture for submission to the cache reviewer.

 

It is with my okay that the cacher copied the wording from my cache page. He actually even improved upon it with his spacing.

 

If ANY cache is submitted within the guidelines, and the reviewer sees that it met the guidelines, I see no reason not to approve it.

 

So now to clarify some issues above that I know will be questioned...

 

I was and am visiting Memphis often to visit a 94 year old family friend from Louisiana who is in an extended care home here. Now before you start questioning why would someone who lived in Louisiana be here -- she is here because she has no children, no living sisters or brothers, and her niece who is fairly famous in Memphis lives there. So when I visit her, I normally am doing just that and not caching -- so don't look for logs on caches proving I was there.

 

As a result of my cache placement and because I visit and like Memphis, I support the local geocaching club. I am a "founding member" of the Geocachers of West Tennessee and support the organization on my web page -- just as I do for the local groups on my caches in Nashville and Louisiana. I plan on actively participating but the intial club meeting conflicted with a previous non-caching commitment. You will also note I support the club in their local forums.

 

Sincerely,

 

LSUMonica

[+LSUMonica]

Also, by the way the reason I did not post a reply sooner was that I was out caching with friends on Saturday -- not reading or posting in the forums. And yes, for those that debate numbers we did almost 50 in one day in rural TN yesterday. (hint: you start EARLY in the morning and END late at night).

 

Hope you all have as much fun caching today as I did yesterday!

[+Nurse Dave]

I wish there was a guideline where different folks could not place light pole caches every 528 feet, but there is not, so get over it.

 

As long as its within the posted guidelines its my job as a reviewer to approve it

 

Don’t think anyone would want it any other way

 

Just about everyone has a different idea what the sprit of the game is and they play that way, and that’s OK by me and should be OK with you, but if not request changes to adjust the way someone else wants to play, that is your right to judge and force your views on them, but that in itself does not change the guidelines

 

I am just ducky swimming around out here is the big pond of life having a blast .

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

Perfect. Just throw your hands up and say "it's not my fault". Those are they types of people we need approving.

[+sbell111]

Perfect. Just throw your hands up and say "it's not my fault". Those are they types of people we need approving.

Dude, you are out of line.

 

While some people have expressed a problem with two caches being from the same cam, many others have no problem with it at all. Other areas have multiple webcam caches in the same general area where all the cams are accessible from the same page. Why is this any different?

 

The approver is charged with approving caches based on the guidelines. I don't think you want him to deny your next cache because he thought it was lame, do you?

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I think it comes down to the perception of what a webcam cache is. Is it finding the camera, or finding the right spot to get your picture taken? I think it's the later, other opinions may vary of course. In the end tho, is this issue really going to keep anyone up at night worrying about it?

[+Bartster]

Okay, so I was in Memphis tonight for a Grizzlies game (and yes, they won! Go Grizzlies!!) and I was on Beale Street. I took my pocket ruler and physically measured it.

 

Are y'all ready for this?

 

 

 

It was 527 feet and 5 inches!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

That doesn't even qualify for the round-up rule!

 

So I guess by the letter of the law, this cache must be archived!!

 

Before everyone gets bent out of shape, you must know I averaged the gpsr readings 10 times in each location for a minimum of 10 minutes each time. That should take care of any accuracy questions some of you are thinking about as you read this post. And I used 4 different gpsr's each time, so all you magellan and garmin lovers can't dispute it. Oh yeah, and I had my pocket ruler recalibrated last week, so I know it's accurate too (bet you didn't think of that one!).

 

Here's the bad news. I missed the game while I was checking this out. My 9 year old son was really bummed out. But I had to check it because I haven't gotten a minute's sleep this weekend, for worrying about this one.

 

Levity anyone?

 

I'm with you on this one Jamie. Lame? Yes. Within the guidelines? Yes. I'm okay with it, but I probably wouldn't do both. I'd hunt the original, and avoid the copycat. Too bad I didn't log it tonight while I was there. I actually forgot about it! Yes, there is more to life than geocaching!

 

Go Grizzlies!

 

Bartster

[+Sagefox]

Wooo I made it in the Geocaching world!!! One of my caches is being argued in the forums!!!

 

To set the record straight on some of the issues...

Interesting what comes up when we get a deeper look. Situations get discussed at suface value but the reality is often a bit more complex.

 

With this one there has been a creative use of one cam, cooperation between the two placers, and support of local geocaching organizations. LSUMonica's profile shows that she has contributed nicely to this sport and is having fun with it.

[+Stump]

This Webcam can be controlled via the internet. It looks out over a big prairie. There could easily be 4 or more webcams set up here using this technicality. Hmmm.....

[+Bartster]

I think I'll put a web cam cache here.

[+sbell111]

I think I'll put a web cam cache here.

Except it wouldn't be approved because it is not publicly accessible and would likely violate the 'commercial' guideline.

[+sbell111]

This Webcam can be controlled via the internet. It looks out over a big prairie. There could easily be 4 or more webcams set up here using this technicality. Hmmm.....

I'm more concerned that there is a cache less than two hundren feet from that one.

 

I disagree that there even is a 'technicality'. In my opinion, It is the cacher not the guy sitting at the computer that the distance rule is regarding. Would it be OK if the two webcam caches were from separate cameras found on the same webpage? Do they have to be 528 webpages apart?

[+Bartster]

Except it wouldn't be approved because it is not publicly accessible and would likely violate the 'commercial' guideline.

I was only kidding sbell. Why does everyone have to be so serious?

[+fly46]

This whole thread gives me a headache.

 

Max Cacher said that these were placed within the guidelines as they appear on the site. Nurse Dave took the comments and twisted them around to get his comment out there.

 

You looked at the two caches and somebody complained that Monica had one of them even though she was an out of towner - nevermind that since she frequently visits the area that doesn't count as a vacation cache -- AND she placed her page first.

 

I don't know what is up with these forums, but we've had more petty bickering and nitpicking in the last two weeks then we usually have at once.

[+Jamie Z]

You looked at the two caches and somebody complained that Monica had one...

Nobody has said a word about LSUMonica. I posted a link to her cache to provide some background to the issue I wanted to discuss.

 

What thread are you reading?

 

Jamie

[+blazerfan]

This Webcam can be controlled via the internet. It looks out over a big prairie. There could easily be 4 or more webcams set up here using this technicality. Hmmm.....

I'm more concerned that there is a cache less than two hundren feet from that one.

I've visited the physical cache in this area but didn't know about the webcam till I got home to log it. Now I know for cache density the general rule is .1 miles but in this location with a nice webcam and a nice cache location (that can be viewed from the webcam) why would they need to be .1 miles apart? There is no chance of you confusing the 2 caches... so why the concern for there distance?

[Max Cacher]

Jamie Z, I think they are talking about your log to the cache page showing your dislike for the cache

 

LOG

 

Max Cacher

[+sbell111]

...

LOG

classy

[+Tonsil]

I would be remiss if I did not publicly ridicule this foolishness. Perhaps if enough people agree with my opinion, we can shame the hider in question into archiving the cache, and we will have effectively self-regulated without adding more rules to the books.

To use your negative behavior modification approach to make sweeping changes in cache placing you would have to do it at the local level. I have seen the results in various localities of people ridiculing and shaming other people's caches and it has not been pretty. It is a tricky business to separate constructive criticism from an initial emotional response.

 

Perhaps a more effective approach would be to place quality caches nearby as an example. The game should be fun.

Very well said. I wasn't being completely serious in my post, for the very reasons that you mention (even though I think the 2 webcam thing is silly). I, too, have seen local cachers berate a certain type of cache, and the people that placed them. I agreed with them on their opinion of the caches, but not in how they delivered the message. Like you said, the whole point is to have fun.

 

As much as I was kidding about the 'public shaming' bit, I do think we should think twice before adding rules to cover every potential loophole in the game. Do we really want to evolve a vast legal document that every budding new cache hider must digest before placing a new cache? If the guidelines become too unwieldy, people won't read them.

[+worldtraveler]

Is that allowed? I'm not cache nazi, but I sure don't want Memphis to be inundated with listings just for the sake of it.

 

It seems to me that the proximity rule should apply here.

 

Could I make webcam listings for the other three or four directions in which the camera points?

 

Thoughts?

 

Jamie

I agree with you, Jamie. I think the spirit/intent of the proximity/saturation guideline was violated and the approver should not have approved the second cache.

 

From the guideline (bold emphasis mine):

Cache Saturation

 

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

 

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together.

 

I also think the newer cache fails to meet certain specific webcam cache criteria. Compare the web page listing to the requirements shown in bold below:

Webcam Caches

 

These are caches that use existing web cameras placed by individuals or agencies that monitor various areas like parks or road conditions. The idea is to get yourself in front of the camera to log your visit. The camera must provide a photo detailed enough to identify the cacher. The cameras must update at reliable intervals so geocachers can log their visit.

 

Note: When submitting a webcam cache you must submit a photo of yourself taken by the webcam used for the listing as an example to show that the images will be identifiable. If you request that the geocacher hold their GPS up overhead when the photo is taken, then please have your GPS held over your head in the example photo.

 

And since webcam caches are non-physical caches like virtuals, why are they not subject to at least the same "out of the ordinary" and "Wow" placement criteria?

Edited April 13, 2005 by worldtraveler

[+Bartster]

All good points, worldtraveler.

[+Harry Dolphin]

On the other hand, this Web Cam cache cannot be logged as originally intended... New York Minute. But, if I go in under hudsonriverlive, I could get a picture taken from The Promenade. There would be some convoluted software manipulation involved, but I've figured it out. Would this count?

[+The Jester]

Hmm... I was just sitting here reading this thread - with an approver saying if it's submitted and fits the guidelines, it should be approved - and contrasting that with a thread a while ago dealing with power trails. The same guideline was used to disallow close caches. So, does this mean to get a power trail approved we need to use webcams?