Anyone Ever Heard Of Www.navicache.com ???

[+Peconic Bay Sailors]

Just stumbled on this site http://www.navicache.com/ and it looks like these are caches outside the Groundspeak umbrella???

Anyone else ever heard fo it?

 

Looks like different rules...

i.e. they have a cache listed HERE that is just a LAT/LON point off Plum Island on the Ferry Ride from New London. Ct to Orient Pt, NY... it's just a point on the water...

There's nothing there but water...

Edited May 24, 2005 by Peconic Bay Sailors

[+briansnat]

Yes, its alternate listing site. Its been around nearly as long as Geocaching.com. They have looser cache listing rules in hopes of attracting users from here.

 

Generally the site is pretty useless as far as a listing service simply because it doesn't have all that many cache listings. For example they list 35 caches within 100 miles of my Zipcode, the vast majority of which are also listed here. GC.COM has over 4,100 in the same radius.

 

Its basically the refuge of some malcontents and others who have been thrown off of this site for one reason or another.

 

I have several cross listed there and the only logs they've received were from people posting finds for caches originally found through GC.COM.

[+Peconic Bay Sailors]

I thought the virtual cache I mentioned above was pretty worthless...

 

Just a LAT/LON in the middle of LI Sound? What's the point?

There isn't even a bouy there...

[+WildGooseChase]

I thought the virtual cache I mentioned above was pretty worthless...

 

Just a LAT/LON in the middle of LI Sound? What's the point?

There isn't even a bouy there...

That's why I like GC.com versus all the other sites. The regulations everyone complains about here keep caches like that out.

[+Team Shibby]

I remember a time when you couldn't even mention that site on here! We would refer to it as "that other site"...LOL

 

Kar

[+Renegade Knight]

They are #2 though GC.com is #1 by a very wide margin. There are something like 5 listing sites serving the USA at present.

 

So far as I know the important rules are the same and are the same for the other listing sites as well. By important rules I mean the rules good for the geocaching community as opposed to site preference. For every GC.com cache I placed recently I've put up about 3 on Navicache. The GC.com caches gain more finds.

Edited May 24, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+KoosKoos]

Here's a great resource for some of the other sites:

 

Caching Wiki

 

Edit: fixed linky

Edited May 24, 2005 by KoosKoos

[Mr.Yuck]

I remember a time when you couldn't even mention that site on here! We would refer to it as "that other site"...LOL 

 

Kar

Well, if I'm ever going to de-lurk in this forum after almost two years of reading it, I might as well now, even though this thread hasn't turned as negative as I thought. I'm a strong supporter of that website, mainly because it's a viable alternative for listing quality virtual caches. But then again, I live in an area where people will actually find them! I have two of them that have 5 or 6 finds apiece in less than a year. "That other site" is in fact almost as old as this one (went to a full blown cache listing service in April, 2001 I believe). And is particularly strong in it's home base (Rochester, N.Y.) where there are dozens of quality caches listed only there, and almost every GC.com cache is "cross-listed".

 

It's also very strong in Germany for whatever odd reason, where cachers cross-list almost every cache. Most of the heavy hitters on the Navicache leader board are from Germany.

 

Current No. of caches listed on Navicache 5,401 (most cross-listed here)

Current No. of caches listed on GC.com: 168,200

 

There's no denying though, that Navicache is a refuge for Malcontnents from this website, and that that Long Island Sound Virtual is horrifically lame.

 

The Geocaching wiki link is excellent, thanks for it

[+briansnat]

They are #2 though GC.com is #1 by a very wide margin. There are something like 5 listing sites serving the USA at present.

 

Terracaching.com is coming up pretty fast. The one thing it has over Navicache is that most (if not all) of its listings are unique to that site. I doubt it will ever come remotely close to challenging GC.COM, but the fact that its listings are not cross posted on other sites is a plus for it. Its quirky rules as as far as sponsorship and odd rating system for caches and geocachers its a turnoff though.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Current No. of caches listed on Navicache 5,401 (most cross-listed here)

Current No. of caches listed on GC.com: 168,200 ...

The bulk of my new caches are listed on Navicache. I cross listed a TB/Hitchiker hotel. Everthing else is not cross listed.

 

For the most part I will list on the site that best serves the purpose I need at the time. That means the parts to a cache series could be listed on more than one site. I've got about 19 caches to place and the lions share will end up on Navicache. First I'll probably work to break 1000 finds on this site.

 

Terracaching.com has about 600 someodd caches. At least according to AngryKid on the GeoRadio show. That's 600 in a faster time frame than Navicache. It's easy to brand people who would use another site as malcontents. I guess when your standard of measure is GC.com they all are. But if your standard of measure is the geocaching community there is no lack of them, even here.

Edited May 24, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+splicingdan]

Around NYC, Navicache is a bit of a mess. There's caches still listed that have been archived for well over a year.

I don't see the point in listing the same cache on two or more sites.

 

Terracaching.com is coming up pretty fast. The one thing it has over Navicache is that most (if not all) of its listings are unique to that site. I doubt it will ever come remotely close to challenging GC.COM, but the fact that its listings are not cross posted on other sites is a plus for it.  Its quirky rules as as far as sponsorship and odd rating system for caches and geocachers its a turnoff though.

 

Absolutely!

This is a site well worth checking-out.

 

The sponsorship part seems to be a point of contention with many people, but it's quite simple and plays a vital role.

Once you fill-out an application, your name gets listed in a queue for everyone to see. Maybe someone will recognize your name and make an offer to sponsor you or maybe your profile on GC.com will be reviewed to see how active a player you are. Either way, I'd bet that you'll be offered sponsorship in minutes.

 

Here's the key; your two sponsors are your approvers (you can change at any time).

Once you're in, you have full access and can even immediately sponsor others.

 

The point systems for you and your caches may seem quirky at first, but once they're understood, it becomes perfectly logical. Caches accrue points based on several factors. Then, as an owner and finder of a cache, you are awarded the points. More difficult caches accrue more points.

 

When you list a cache, it gets rated. Crummy caches get automatically archived - plain and simple.

The higher your caches are rated, the higher YOUR personal rating gets.

Quality caches are highly encouraged.

 

The only guideline is "nothing illegal".

You play as a responsible adult.

 

Locationlesss caches are also listed.

But beware, the players are cut-throat.....right Brian?

In an strange ironic twist, one of the most prolific and placer here on GC.com, has a negative rating.

Maybe he'll elaborate more...hehe.

Edited May 24, 2005 by splicingdan

[+The Leprechauns]

Geocaching.com Caches within 100 miles of me: 1,761

 

Navicache.com Caches within 100 miles of me: 26

-- 19 cross-listed physical caches active on both sites

-- 4 cross-listed physical caches that have been archived at Geocaching.com

-- 3 virtual caches not listed at Geocaching.com

 

Terracaching.com Caches within 100 miles of me: 5

-- Includes 4 caches previously listed on Geocaching.com but transferred

-- Combined hiking distance for all 5 of the Terracaches: 335 feet

 

So, by only playing on this listing service, I've missed out on three virtuals and five park and grabs. I'll survive.

[Mr.Yuck]

Geocaching.com Caches within 100 miles of me:  1,761

 

Navicache.com Caches within 100 miles of me: 26

-- 19 cross-listed physical caches active on both sites

-- 4 cross-listed physical caches that have been archived at Geocaching.com

-- 3 virtual caches not listed at Geocaching.com

 

Terracaching.com Caches within 100 miles of me: 5

-- Includes 4 caches previously listed on Geocaching.com but transferred

-- Combined hiking distance for all 5 of the Terracaches: 335 feet

 

So, by only playing on this listing service, I've missed out on three virtuals and five park and grabs.  I'll survive.

Hey, I never said NC.com caught on everywhere.

 

Navicaches listed in all of Canada: 119

GC.com listings within 10 miles of GCKOE5 in St. Catherines Ont.: 120

 

But, for what it's worth, Navicaches within 100 miles of my zip code: 407

Navicaches in Germany: 2,547 (47% of the total)

 

Yes, Terracaching in Western Pa. isn't looking too good right about now; includes a bridge micro hidden by some kid, with the first and only finder someone who "helped place it" according to their find log, and also a webcam cache that was cross-listed here (against Terracaching policy), which I see has recently been removed from that site.

Edited May 25, 2005 by TheWhiteUrkel

[Mr.Yuck]

Around NYC, Navicache is a bit of a mess. There's caches still listed that have been archived for well over a year.

I don't see the point in listing the same cache on two or more sites.

 

Yes, and the Leprechauns mentioned that too in their area, and it was also the case in my area. I took it upon myself to notify the Navicache Admin about the 10 archived on geocaching.com caches in my area still listed, and it's currently being taken care of.

 

I suppose I list on multiple sites for the exposure. I also list on GPSgames.org as well. As long as those sites allow it (which they do).

[+Renegade Knight]

Geocaching.com Caches within 100 miles of me: 1,761

 

Navicache.com Caches within 100 miles of me: 26

-- 19 cross-listed physical caches active on both sites

-- 4 cross-listed physical caches that have been archived at Geocaching.com

-- 3 virtual caches not listed at Geocaching.com

 

Terracaching.com Caches within 100 miles of me: 5

-- Includes 4 caches previously listed on Geocaching.com but transferred

-- Combined hiking distance for all 5 of the Terracaches: 335 feet

 

So, by only playing on this listing service, I've missed out on three virtuals and five park and grabs. I'll survive.

Hey, at least you looked. You never know when a good cache will crop up and you will face 200 micro's on GC and a hike on one of the others. Or vice versa. You never know where this hobby will take you.

[+splicingdan]

Geocaching.com Caches within 100 miles of me:  1,761

 

Navicache.com Caches within 100 miles of me: 26

-- 19 cross-listed physical caches active on both sites

-- 4 cross-listed physical caches that have been archived at Geocaching.com

-- 3 virtual caches not listed at Geocaching.com

 

Terracaching.com Caches within 100 miles of me: 5

-- Includes 4 caches previously listed on Geocaching.com but transferred

-- Combined hiking distance for all 5 of the Terracaches: 335 feet

 

So, by only playing on this listing service, I've missed out on three virtuals and five park and grabs.  I'll survive.

Yup. There's no denying that.

There are only 20 Terracaches within 100 miles of me - 3 of which are mine.

But I view that as a postive characteristic. In essence, it's a blank slate.

 

As far as "park and grabs"; I see 9 caches listed in PA, 4 of which have been found once and the other 5 have yet to be found. The ratings range from 5.0 to 5.9 (where 5.0 is average).

So, some people must consider them worthy.

 

It's all relative. I have 328 "finds" here on GC.com and have listed in my profile 15 that I consider stand-outs - that's it, just 15.

I have 14 finds on TC.com - one of them being my all-time favorite caching adventure (Take Me Out To The Ballgame), and one other that I rated "excellent".

My point being that it's a low percentage that I consider of good quality, but hopefully will be higher on TC.com because of their system.

[+briansnat]

When you list a cache, it gets rated. Crummy caches get automatically archived - plain and simple.

 

This is a mixed bag. People are allowed to rate caches before even finding them. I had a cache listed and archived before there was a single find. What's the deal with that .

 

Here's the key; your two sponsors are your approvers (you can change at any time).

 

And your sponsors can apparently drop you at any time, for any reason. And I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), if my sponsor drops me, those who I have sponsored also are affected and anyone they have sponsored as well. Its a domino effect (so I've been told). If that's true, that's just plain dumb (not to mention unfair).

 

The only guideline is "nothing illegal".

You play as a responsible adult.

 

That's what scares me. A lot of guidlines at GC.COM are common sense. Its not illegal to place a cache in a train station, but its really stupid.

[+splicingdan]

This is a mixed bag. People are allowed to rate caches before even finding them. I had a cache listed and archived before there was a single find. What's the deal with that blink.gif .

 

Yes, you are encouraged to rate a cache (before finding it) based on first impressions.

Finder's ratings weigh more than non-finders.

But, if it's rated poorly enough times, it gets archived.

 

Your cache was very interesting. I had no idea such machines existed.

Personally, I don't play the locationless caches, but I noticed your's because of your forum post.

Please detail it here....pretty please

 

And your sponsors can apparently drop you at any time, for any reason. And I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), if my sponsor drops me, those who I have sponsored also are affected and anyone they have sponsored as well. Its a domino effect (so I've been told). If that's true, that's just plain dumb (not to mention unfair).

 

I believe that is true. But it really has no adverse effects. Your name will be listed on the queue again and someone else will sponsor you.

 

 

That's what scares me. A lot of guidlines at GC.COM are common sense. Its not illegal to place a cache in a train station, but its really stupid.

 

I believe that common sense is being used on TC.com also.

Again, it's adults playing responsibly.

[+Alan2]

Competition is good. It keeps prices down.

[+briansnat]

Again, it's adults playing responsibly.

 

OK Pollyanna.

[+splicingdan]

Again, it's adults playing responsibly.

 

OK Pollyanna.

LOL.

 

Well, prove me wrong and then I'll change my view, Momus.

[+Peconic Bay Sailors]

Competition is good.  It keeps prices down.

Yes... competition is good...

BUT...

if the competition uses guidelines that are much more lax than GC.com...

Then the whole sport is in jeopardy, because of one upstart competitor, who allows caches in restricted or rediculous spots...

(come on, a cache in the middle of the Sound that is just a LAT/LON!!! With no actual structure or redeming quality? I could see it if the spot was a great fishing secret... but this is not the case here...

Give ma break...

what next...

a particular tree in the middle of the pine barrens that looks like the rest of the trees?)

 

And what prices???

You don't HAVE to become a Premium Member of GC.com...

That's a personal choice to suport a site that you get so much benefit from...

Edited May 25, 2005 by Peconic Bay Sailors

[+The Leprechauns]

Again, it's adults playing responsibly.

 

OK Pollyanna.

LOL.

 

Well, prove me wrong and then I'll change my view, Momus.

All I've done is peek over a friend's shoulder to look at the terracaches near me, so I can't judge how things are in, say, New Jersey or New York. But I will tell you that what I saw listed in my area was a big turnoff. At that time, there were three cross-listed caches, which Terracaching trumpets as being forbidden or strongly discouraged. I hear that they've since disappeared, so that's good... but dang, they got listed. I also saw a cache that had been archived at this site when it became apparent that it was hidden beneath a bridge on a four-lane, limited access highway. Such caches are a prime cause of bomb scares, and for that reason the guidelines here prohibit such placements. But dang, it got listed over there.

 

If the first wave of caches had been quality hides, like something from Quest Master in the Laurel Highlands or from Ian5281 in Allegheny National Forest, I might be persuaded to follow suit. But cross-listings and immigrant park and grabs? Sounds just like Navicache.

[+Renegade Knight]

As other sites grow so will their ability to deal with cache placements. GC.com used to approve everthing and not all GC.com rules are for the good of geocaching. Some are for the good of GC.com and others are GC.com preferencs in rule forum.

 

So far I've seen good and bad on all sites and there is no universal path of light that leads to "The One Site" Nor will there be.

[+The Leprechauns]

There are tons of forgettable caches listed here, no doubt. But this site doesn't hold itself out as being "superior" in the quality of its caches, or "exclusive" in not cross-listing caches or requiring sponsors to vouch for you before you can play. The other one does. Now, perhaps that model is working great and lives up to its advertising in Washington, Montana and Idaho - my friends there say that it is. Fine, they're lucky to have more good caches to go after. But this is the Northeast forum.

[Mr.Yuck]

BUT...

if the competition uses guidelines that are much more lax than GC.com...

Then the whole sport is in jeopardy, because of one upstart competitor, who allows caches in restricted or rediculous spots...

(come on, a cache in the middle of the Sound that is just a LAT/LON!!! With no actual structure or redeming quality? I could see it if the spot was a great fishing secret... but this is not the case here...

Give ma break...

what next...

a particular tree in the middle of the pine barrens that looks like the rest of the trees?)

 

Now c'mon. We all know GC.com is loaded with ridiculously lame "grandfathered" virtuals, that have no criteria for logging, or can easily be looked up on the internet. Since this is the all New Jersey all the time forum, I needn't mention a certain virtual in a Theatre parking lot off of US1 that has absolutely no criteria for logging, and whose encrypted hint tells you exactly what it is. (And has been adopted by one of the most respected members of the caching community).

[+Team Shibby]

BUT...

if the competition uses guidelines that are much more lax than GC.com...

Then the whole sport is in jeopardy, because of one upstart competitor, who allows caches in restricted or rediculous spots...

(come on, a cache in the middle of the Sound that is just a LAT/LON!!! With no actual structure or redeming quality? I could see it if the spot was a great fishing secret... but this is not the case here...

Give ma break...

what next...

a particular tree in the middle of the pine barrens that looks like the rest of the trees?)

 

Now c'mon. We all know GC.com is loaded with ridiculously lame "grandfathered" virtuals, that have no criteria for logging, or can easily be looked up on the internet. Since this is the all New Jersey all the time forum, I needn't mention a certain virtual in a Theatre parking lot off of US1 that has absolutely no criteria for logging, and whose encrypted hint tells you exactly what it is. (And has been adopted by one of the most respected members of the caching community).

Psssst....thats why virtuals are no longer permitted!

 

While its true that GC at one time would approve almost anything, that was when they first started out. Within a year and a half to two years, they put a stop to virtuals and locationless caches or as some would say "caches that have NO redeeming value". NC on the other hand saw an opportunity to jump on the bandwagon a short while after GC was born and has not adopted any such regulations what so ever. I may be wrong, but I assume its out of desperation to get members. Lets face it, GC has a few hundred thousand members while NC have only a couple thousand...if that.

 

Also, look at all the changes GC has implemented over the years, like new icons and such...its not long before NC copies them with some cheesy looking MS Paint graphics. It almost seems like NC may have been created by a disgruntled ex GC member

 

I have nothing against the other sites, I just like GC.com

 

Kar

[+splicingdan]

Again, it's adults playing responsibly.

 

OK Pollyanna.

LOL.

 

Well, prove me wrong and then I'll change my view, Momus.

All I've done is peek over a friend's shoulder to look at the terracaches near me, so I can't judge how things are in, say, New Jersey or New York. But I will tell you that what I saw listed in my area was a big turnoff. At that time, there were three cross-listed caches, which Terracaching trumpets as being forbidden or strongly discouraged. I hear that they've since disappeared, so that's good... but dang, they got listed. I also saw a cache that had been archived at this site when it became apparent that it was hidden beneath a bridge on a four-lane, limited access highway. Such caches are a prime cause of bomb scares, and for that reason the guidelines here prohibit such placements. But dang, it got listed over there.

 

If the first wave of caches had been quality hides, like something from Quest Master in the Laurel Highlands or from Ian5281 in Allegheny National Forest, I might be persuaded to follow suit. But cross-listings and immigrant park and grabs? Sounds just like Navicache.

Looks like this is the cache that you mention.

In all fairness, all of the mapping services plot the coordinates near, but not under the highway.

Do you know for a fact that it is under? Or are you looking over your friend's shoulder again?

Seems that the cache is located on a very steep hillside. Under, over, or adjacent will be very tough to call from a map due to the sharp elevation change.

I think that the owner's mistake was to ignore the concerns of Keystone Approver.

 

Whatever the case, caches on any site are going to slip through.

For instance, which situation would you like me to point out for a cache listed here on GC.com?

 

-One of the many located as close (or even closer) as the cache in question to a highway in and around NYC?

-Directly on the concrete support structure of a roadway bridge in NJ?

-Attached to the underside of a US mailbox in Manhattan?

-One of the numerous caches attached to privately owned payphones?

-A recently approved cache in a Federal park here on SI?

 

Hate to tell you, but even the almighty guidelines here can prove to be ineffective.

Edited May 25, 2005 by splicingdan