Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 80

Thread: Terracaching in the UK ...

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Torquay
    Posts
    42

    Default Terracaching in the UK ...

    ... is starting to build up in activity - but it could use a few more caches being placed.

    If you are a member of TC.com, why not take advantage of the good weather and place a terracache - even a virtual cache if you just want to 'dip you toe in the waters' (virtuals are still permitted on TC.com).

    If no-one places caches, there are no caches to be found.

    Cache well !
    :cheers:

    Paul

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    I'll tell me ol' man when he gets in that I fancy a shallow paddle .
    What about locationless ?
    We like Greens

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Torquay
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.a.folk View Post
    What about locationless ?
    Yep, locationless caches are there too!
    Paul (Lord Darcy)



  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    304

    Default

    I've just managd to join up and had a look, the caches are very sparce the only one anywhere near me is also list on GC.COM and I've done it already, never mind now of some fantastic spots round here that I have been unable to get permission to place an actual box so I'll try and work out how to set a locationless soon

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    261

    Default

    I've been a member for some time now but the main bar to getting more caches listed is their policy of not allowing Terracaches to be cross-listed on GC.com

  6. #6
    pklong Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hornet View Post
    I've been a member for some time now but the main bar to getting more caches listed is their policy of not allowing Terracaches to be cross-listed on GC.com
    Well that's a show stopper then, they won't be getting any caches from me


    Philip

  7. #7
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    I did try to contact them to discuss that point peter but despite trying several names I never received one single reply. Shame as if cross publishing was allowed then more people would use it.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Yes, it's a shame they don't allow cross-posting, but I'm thinking of placing a virtual or two and perhaps a locationless on there.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    304

    Default

    The only cache near me is on both sites

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Tiger-Eyes wrote:
    The only cache near me is on both sites
    Yes, there are some on both sites, possibly quite a few. The rules don't allow it, but it's your sponsors who approve or reject your caches, and I imagine some just turn a blind eye, or don't check.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  11. #11

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    The only traditional Terra cache we have found has been reported missing since early last year and it has not noted as having been checked by it's owner .
    That Terra cache had a number in it that is one of several numbers needed to help solve a mystery cache published by Groundspeak .
    We like Greens

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Maybe I'll try cross posting one of mine and see what happens. Maybe you can only cross-post if you cross-dress h34r:

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Torquay
    Posts
    42

    Default

    For information -

    (from Terracaching's Wiki )

    ... The TerraCaching community generally prefers that caches listed here be unique to this site. However, since every cache is judged on it's own merits, exceptions are always possible. ...


    Talk with your sponsors ... ask if they would consider approving a cross-listed cache - they may agree to one or two to get an area started.
    Last edited by Lord Darcy; 19th June 2008 at 06:50 PM.
    Paul (Lord Darcy)



  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Lord Darcy wrote:
    ... The TerraCaching community generally prefers that caches listed here be unique to this site. However, since every cache is judged on it's own merits, exceptions are always possible. ...
    Thanks for that, Paul - I thought I'd seen something like that on there somewhere, but when I looked for it the other day I couldn't find it again!
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  15. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Torquay
    Posts
    42

    Default

    I don't know about others, but I'd rather spend a day caching and find two or three well thought out highly-rated caches than a dozen micros about which I wonder "why have they been placed?", they may well add a smiley to my total but don't do a lot for me. (and I'm guilty about placing micros too ).

    or is it "all about the numbers"?

    On GC.com a micro on a power trail is "worth" the same as a "great cache" - on TC.com a "great cache" is rewarded with a high MCE (measure of cache excellence).
    Last edited by Lord Darcy; 20th June 2008 at 04:46 AM.
    Paul (Lord Darcy)



  16. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    I'm not (wasn't) a member of TerraCaching and I'm really not sure yet if I want to use 2 separate sites. However, the TerraCaching model means I can't even see what it looks like without registering and getting a couple of sponsors.

    So I have now created an account (amberel) and am looking for sponsors please.

    The site was painfully slow and unreliable, at least half the time I got "page not found" when trying to register, and I had to submit the activation email 7 times over a 1 hour period before that returned with anything other than "page not found". Was I just unlucky, or is it normally like this?

    Rgds, Andy

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cambridge
    Posts
    572

    Default

    I did sign up for Terracaching when I first started but never used the site due to the lack of caches in my area.

    After a while I got a warning that unless I used it I would be 'expelled' - which I duly was after another couple of weeks.

    Never been back to look at the site as GC.COM keeps me very busy.

    So many caches - so little time (work gets in the way)
    Happy Caching

    Gazooks

    - Setting a good example for children takes all the fun out of middle age.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gazooks View Post
    After a while I got a warning that unless I used it I would be 'expelled' - which I duly was after another couple of weeks.
    Oh you naughty boy! I hope you don't get expelled if you have logged caches but then can't log on to the site for a while for any reason.

    Rgds, Andy

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Torquay
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gazooks View Post
    I did sign up for Terracaching when I first started but never used the site due to the lack of caches in my area.

    After a while I got a warning that unless I used it I would be 'expelled' - which I duly was after another couple of weeks.
    I think that you must have had a very intolerant sponsor. I may well prefer sponsorees that are active but to withdraw sponsorship because of a lack of activity is a bit harsh. An encouraging email would have been better.

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    ... However, the TerraCaching model means I can't even see what it looks like without registering and getting a couple of sponsors.

    So I have now created an account (amberel) and am looking for sponsors please.

    The site was painfully slow and unreliable, at least half the time I got "page not found" when trying to register, and I had to submit the activation email 7 times over a 1 hour period before that returned with anything other than "page not found". Was I just unlucky, or is it normally like this? ...
    Maps and cache descriptions (but not precise locations - like GC.com) are generally available to non-members ... see http://www.terracaching.com/gmap.cgi ... the Wiki (aka TCki) http://www.terracaching.com/tcki/index.php/Intro

    The TC server can be slower than GC and I was also having quite a few problems in the last few hours, but normally it isn't so bad as it has been this morning.

    Lack of caches in you area? - Why not place one or two? Maybe a virtual - yes,TC still list virtuals. It can be a "chicken and egg" situation - no caches=no activity, no activity=no caches.
    Paul (Lord Darcy)



  20. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Darcy View Post
    Maps and cache descriptions (but not precise locations - like GC.com) are generally available to non-members ... see http://www.terracaching.com/gmap.cgi ... the Wiki (aka TCki) http://www.terracaching.com/tcki/index.php/Intro

    The TC server can be slower than GC and I was also having quite a few problems in the last few hours, but normally it isn't so bad as it has been this morning.

    Lack of caches in you area? - Why not place one or two? Maybe a virtual - yes,TC still list virtuals. It can be a "chicken and egg" situation - no caches=no activity, no activity=no caches.
    Sorry, I didn't spot the route to seeing the cache pages without signing up. Still haven't actually; even using your link, it still keeps bombing out on me before I can do anything.

    Depending on what I find when I get to see anything I might be prepared to cross list some of my better caches if that was permitted, which still isn't clear to me. But I think I'd want to see how things went before setting a cache unuiquely for TC.

    The virtuals put me off a bit. I've done a couple of grandfathered ones on GC and they didn't float my boat at all. I saw the earlier comments about putting some virtuals on TC because they aren't allowed on GC, and I fear if TC ended up with loads of virtuals as a result, it would be less attractive to me.

    Rgds, Andy

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Darcy View Post
    Maps and cache descriptions (but not precise locations - like GC.com) are generally available to non-members ... see http://www.terracaching.com/gmap.cgi ... the Wiki (aka TCki) http://www.terracaching.com/tcki/index.php/Intro
    I must be as thick as 2 short ones. I found the fairly obscure link from the home page to the maps, but for the life of me I can't see how to get to the cache pages.

    Not helped at all by the speed of the site, it's still running like treacle.

    Sandvika has sponsored me (thank-you), so one down and one to go.

    Rgds, Andy

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Torquay
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    ... The virtuals put me off a bit. I've done a couple of grandfathered ones on GC and they didn't float my boat at all. I saw the earlier comments about putting some virtuals on TC because they aren't allowed on GC, and I fear if TC ended up with loads of virtuals as a result, it would be less attractive to me. ...
    That's fine, if virtuals are not your scene, ignore them. I merely suggested them as an 'easy to post' cache.

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    I must be as thick as 2 short ones. I found the fairly obscure link from the home page to the maps, but for the life of me I can't see how to get to the cache pages.
    On the maps page, click on a pin to bring up the detail balloon, click on the cache name for the cache page.
    Paul (Lord Darcy)



  23. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Darcy View Post
    That's fine, if virtuals are not your scene, ignore them. I merely suggested them as an 'easy to post' cache.

    On the maps page, click on a pin to bring up the detail balloon, click on the cache name for the cache page.
    > That's fine, if virtuals are not your scene, ignore them.

    Of course, provided there are some non-virtuals as well. My point was that if TerraCache got lots more caches, but they were mostly virtuals because they were listable on TC but not GC, that wouldn't really fit in with my preferred caches.

    > On the maps page, click on a pin to bring up the detail balloon,
    > click on the cache name for the cache page

    Got it, thanks. That didn't work for me last time because the speed it was running at made it completely unworkable, but it's better this evening.

    But is that the only way? I would have thought it a rather cumbersome process to do the panning and zooming every time.

    I've now got my sponsors, thanks to sandvika, icenians and mouse. I accepted the first two, at which point mouse disappeared from the screen - I'm not being rude by not accepting you, mouse, but it looks like once I've accepted the first two, that's the process complete.

    Possibly even more than I expected, they are very thin on the ground. I live south of Heathrow and it looks like with a 30 or 40 mile radius there is just Sandvika's at Iver and 4 in London. I do rather feel that in order to get a head of steam, it would serve TC to allow cross listing - without that I can see it being very difficult to get a critical mass.

    Rgds, Andy

  24. #24
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Hi all

    I'd just like to throw my 2p in on this.

    I don't see what will be achieved by cross posting caches, I know, mine is cross posted but that's by mistake! It was only on Terracaching for some time and I unarchived it on GC forgetting to do anything with it on Terracaching.

    Anyway, crossposting simply lets people log the same cache twice and doesn't really help terracaching at all. Several years ago when I first stubbled onto this game there were a total of 7 caches in the county, now I have to go several pages to get beyond 10 miles on GC. Before that there were a lot less!

    I don't understand the common complaint that terracaching has no caches therefore I'm not going to play there. If this was the attitude used on GC at the start then none of us would have caches there either.

    If we all go out and place a cache that just belongs to terracache then we suddenly have an alternative source of caches to hunt rather than the same list to log twice.

    Terracaching has a different focus on caches, caches are rated by a system, not pretending to understand that system, but the idea is that not all caches are scored the same. Terracaching is about high quality caches and simply flooding the site with cross posted caches from GC doesn't fit that requirement. I think that anyone who has been playing this game for any length of time will agree that quality has given way to quantity in some areas!

    Once there was only one geocache and that didn't have a listings site at all!

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    Hi all
    I don't see what will be achieved by cross posting caches ...

    ... crossposting simply lets people log the same cache twice and doesn't really help terracaching at all. Several years ago when I first stubbled onto this game there were a total of 7 caches in the county, now I have to go several pages to get beyond 10 miles on GC. Before that there were a lot less!

    I don't understand the common complaint that terracaching has no caches therefore I'm not going to play there. If this was the attitude used on GC at the start then none of us would have caches there either.

    If we all go out and place a cache that just belongs to terracache then we suddenly have an alternative source of caches to hunt rather than the same list to log twice.

    Terracaching has a different focus on caches, caches are rated by a system, not pretending to understand that system, but the idea is that not all caches are scored the same. Terracaching is about high quality caches and simply flooding the site with cross posted caches from GC doesn't fit that requirement. I think that anyone who has been playing this game for any length of time will agree that quality has given way to quantity in some areas!

    Once there was only one geocache and that didn't have a listings site at all!
    First of all, many thanks for sponsoring me.

    Your points are all good ones, and I don't pretend to have thought through all the implications of cross posting. Nevertheless, I believe there is a major difference between GC starting up with no caches, but also with no competitor, and TC starting up with very few caches but with GC already established with 30,000 caches in the UK alone.

    > crossposting simply lets people log the same cache twice and doesn't
    > really help terracaching at all.

    I assume from this you believe all TerraCachers will also be GC cachers. I think that's right - if I had to exclusively choose one or the other, it would be a massive leap of faith to go with TC at present. The point about cross listing is that TC could reach its critical mass of caches much earlier than otherwise would be the case. By critical mass, I mean sufficient caches to support the hobby without cachers having to supplement them by using other listing sites. Once the critical mass had been reached, cross listing would become much less important, i.e. it would be a sort of catalyst.

    > If we all go out and place a cache that just belongs to terracache
    > then we suddenly have an alternative source of caches to hunt
    > rather than the same list to log twice.

    If people are using the two listing sites in parallel, as "the same list to log twice" implies, then it makes no difference to the total number of caches which of the two sites a cache is listed on, or indeed if it is listed on both.

    > Terracaching is about high quality caches and simply flooding the
    > site with cross posted caches from GC doesn't fit that requirement.

    Agreed. I meant (and maybe even said) that if cross listing were allowed, I would cherry pick the better caches.

    > I think that anyone who has been playing this game for any length
    > of time will agree that quality has given way to quantity in some areas!

    Personally I don't think quality has given way to to quantity, but that on GC we now have both, though usually not at the same time. What I mean by that is my first brief look suggests GC has vastly more high quality caches than TC has. It also has even more ordinary caches than TC. On GC the good ones can get a bit submerged in the ordinary ones, but the way round that is to ask on the forums.

    It's much too early for me to say if I will be doing anything with TC, I need to look and lurk for a bit to get a feel for it. But my initial feeling is that without cross listing, that critical mass will be too hard to reach.

    Rgds, Andy

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    I've done a bit more investigation this morning, and things are much worse than I thought! Of the 5 caches within 40 miles of me, none are caches I would consider doing if they were on GC! This is not a reflection of their quality, just their type.

    Three are virtuals, one is a webcam and the other appears to be just a description of the location with no co-ordinates listed. None of these interest me, especially not the first four.

    Furthermore, I haven't found a better way to list caches than using the map, and I think that method will be unworkable if the density gets much more than 5 in 40 miles. The number of caches shown was dependent on zoom level, and at some levels it only showed me 3 in total. It showed caches irrespective of type, or even found status. To filter in this way requires premium membership, but I think if they are going to take off they need to get the system usable before they expect people to pay for it.

    I do fully understand that it may be a chicken and egg situation, but what I've found so far indicates that not only does it offer nothing of interest to me that isn't already on groundspeak, it actually offers nothing at all of interest to me even if groundspeak wasn't there!!! If that's the case now, it's quite likely to continue that way even if I put out a cache on TC myself.

    In these circumstances I'm not prepared to place a cache for TC that I could place on GC instead, unless I can list on them both (and do so while adhering to the TC rules).

    Rgds, Andy

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Torquay
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Most of the above discussion has simply highlighted my original post -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Darcy View Post
    ... is starting to build up in activity - but it could use a few more caches being placed.

    If you are a member of TC.com, why not take advantage of the good weather and place a terracache - even a virtual cache if you just want to 'dip you toe in the waters' (virtuals are still permitted on TC.com).

    If no-one places caches, there are no caches to be found.

    Cache well !
    :cheers:

    Paul
    Since it appears that the suggestion in my original post has fallen on 'stony ground', can I ask the moderators to close this thread.

    Discussion of the mechanics of the TC.com site could best be discussed on the TC.com forum.
    Paul (Lord Darcy)



  28. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Darcy View Post
    Since it appears that the suggestion in my original post has fallen on 'stony ground', can I ask the moderators to close this thread.

    Discussion of the mechanics of the TC.com site could best be discussed on the TC.com forum.
    Nevertheless, I think the discussion has been useful and possibly has further to go. It has already resulted in me joining TerraCache and finding out more about it, which would not have been the case if you hadn't started it. Indeed, if this thread is closed I may start another one on the subject of TerraCache in general, and on ways in which it might be kick started in the UK.

    Rgds, Andy

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Lord Darcy wrote:
    Since it appears that the suggestion in my original post has fallen on 'stony ground', can I ask the moderators to close this thread.
    Sorry Paul, but I agree with amberel's follow-up that this discussion has perhaps been useful and maybe has further to go. More than that, we have a policy of light moderation, and wouldn't close a thread unless it was unacceptable in itself (for example, commercial solicitation) or had disintegrated into personal attacks or similar.

    You may well be right that a discussion of the mechanics of TC's site may be more productive if held in their forums rather than here, but discussion of people's feelings about TC in general are maybe better held here in a neutral forum.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  30. #30
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    I'm very grateful for the discussion on TC here. Because of problems on GC I've suggested more than once that TC could be an alternative. It's clear from this discussion that it can't be, and probably doesn't want to be.

  31. #31
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    I think it's a shame that so many people join the site, say 'oh no caches near me' and never visit again. Everyone seems to be waiting for someone else to place all the caches.

    Ah well, never mind. Each to their own. Maybe if I plonk enough around Norfolk people there will start doing some and adding new ones for me to do

    I actually found myself in a position to do a Terracache in the last two days

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    I think the problem is that when you find there are no caches that interest you within 40 miles (and it easily could be more than that, I haven't looked) it brings home the scale of what needs to be done to make TerraCaching viable in the UK.

    I'd suggest a ballpark figure of 1000 UK caches minimum (GS have 30,000), of which a majority probably need to be physical caches. Now, only very dedicated people are going to place caches during this phase, I can't see anything LIKE 1000 going down. With things left as they are now, it's not going to happen.

    I've suggested cross listing as a way to get past the critical level, whether it is 1000 or something else. What other ways might there be to encourage the process?

    TC also need to provide something that GC don't. Maybe that it is "competition" is enough. Maybe it's the scoring system; I'm not sure how much that interests me, I don't think it does but I'll have to wait and see.

    I'm pretty sure it needs more than it's doing at the moment if it is ever to get started.

    Rgds, Andy

  33. #33
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    TC also need to provide something that GC don't. Maybe that it is "competition" is enough. Maybe it's the scoring system; I'm not sure how much that interests me, I don't think it does but I'll have to wait and see.
    Well, there are virtuals and locationless caches for starters.......

    Never found the perfect spot for a cache, only to find you either can't get permission, or it falls outside the GC guidelines....????? Perhaps that's the angle TC needs to push?

  34. #34
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    I've just been over there reading a couple of things and several thoughts occurred.

    While they say the don't allow cross posting they also say that they use playground rules in that we all decide what will and wont be allowed.

    So basically why not cross list the best caches on your list and do a load of virtuals? Use the basic GAGB guidelines for permission and logical placements without upsetting land owners and so on.

    At the end of the day so what if people post finds on both sites? I use caching as an excuse to go for good walks so I'd have another excuse to go to the same place.

    I'm very tempted to start cherry picking my better ones ( if any exist!)

  35. #35
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post
    What other ways might there be to encourage the process?
    If - and from this and other discussions I don't believe that it does - TC wants to develop then from my perspective these are the things that need to change...

    Remove the requirement for sponsorship. Except for all but the most dedicated this is an immediate barrier. Allowing only people you know to join a club is elitist. That's fine - it's their club - but it's not going to encourage membership is it?

    Stop discouraging family membership. I can't remember where I read this, but it was no doubt somewhere on TC before they closed it all down unless you're a member. Many cachers - me included - started caching as a family activity, often when the children were young and enthusiastic about "treasure hunts". Saying that every individual should log under their own account is an unnecessary burden.

    Stop discouraging all but the "best" caches. Once again, this is an example of TC's elitism. What's a good and a bad cache is down to the judgement and preferences of the cache owner and seekers, not the listing site. Discouraging all but the best caches is a brake on growth.

    Stop discouraging cross listing. TC is a listing site: a platform for a cache owner to advertise his cache so that others know it's there for finding. It's up to the cache owner to decide which listing sites are appropriate. I believe the reason for discouraging cross-listing is because TC thinks that a cache worthy of being on its site couldn't possibly be worthy of being on other sites.

    Advertise and promote. Groundspeak has been successful not least because of its advertising and self-promotion, so much so now that no GPS manufacturer or supplier of geocaching equipment wouldn't consider some sort of tie-in to Groundspeak. TC has to work on that. Even on this site - which should be agnostic about listing sites - it's Groundspeak which is prominent.

    All in all, TC comes across as elitist, which is why I conclude it doesn't want new members and their caches. I'm sure this impression isn't accidental, and is the reason why there are few caches on TC. If TC wants to develop then that elitism is what has to change.

    I'd love to see a viable alternative to Groundspeak: I can't see that ever being TC.

  36. #36
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    Stop discouraging all but the "best" caches. Once again, this is an example of TC's elitism. What's a good and a bad cache is down to the judgement and preferences of the cache owner and seekers, not the listing site. Discouraging all but the best caches is a brake on growth.
    Mind you, there are SOME caches that gate placed by inexpreienced people that EVERYONE would agree are bad!

    Stop discouraging cross listing. TC is a listing site: a platform for a cache owner to advertise his cache so that others know it's there for finding. It's up to the cache owner to decide which listing sites are appropriate. I believe the reason for discouraging cross-listing is because TC thinks that a cache worthy of being on its site couldn't possibly be worthy of being on other sites.
    I would suggest that the reason for not wanting cross-listing is 100% political... whoever set up TC did so for a reason, and I'll bet part of that was that they were rather hacked off with Groudspeak. I don't think "worthiness" really enters into it

    paul

  37. #37
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paul.blitz View Post
    I would suggest that the reason for not wanting cross-listing is 100% political... whoever set up TC did so for a reason, and I'll bet part of that was that they were rather hacked off with Groudspeak. I don't think "worthiness" really enters into it

    paul
    I think they were kicked off of GC so your assumption is probably right.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    [quote=keehotee;18338]Well, there are virtuals and locationless caches for starters.......quote]
    Unfortunately, as I've said before, locationless, virtuals, webcams and so on hold no interest for me, so a profusion of those types of caches would, if anything, work against the site as far as I'm concerned.

    It's been suggested that I ignore types I don't like, but I've yet to spot the way to do that. Also, in the short term it would mean no caches appearing on the map, so I need to leave them there for the present just so I know the site hasn't broken :-)

    Rgds, Andy

  39. #39
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paul.blitz View Post
    I would suggest that the reason for not wanting cross-listing is 100% political... whoever set up TC did so for a reason, and I'll bet part of that was that they were rather hacked off with Groudspeak. I don't think "worthiness" really enters into it

    paul
    Yes, that's sounds a more likely reason than mine. In which case it's an even poorer reason for prohibiting cross-listing .

  40. #40
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    [quote=amberel;18353]
    Quote Originally Posted by keehotee View Post
    Well, there are virtuals and locationless caches for starters.......quote]
    Unfortunately, as I've said before, locationless, virtuals, webcams and so on hold no interest for me, so a profusion of those types of caches would, if anything, work against the site as far as I'm concerned.
    Aaaaah - I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your post.
    I thought you were questioning how TC could big itself up and encourage growth, not just how they could make it more attractive to you......

  41. #41

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    [quote=keehotee;18355]
    Quote Originally Posted by amberel View Post

    Aaaaah - I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your post.
    I thought you were questioning how TC could big itself up and encourage growth, not just how they could make it more attractive to you......
    There's no need for sarcasm, no matter how mild it is.

    Just "bigging it up" is pointless if it is "bigged up" in directions the majority of members don't like. I don't know if my dislike of virtuals is shared by a majority or not, but if no-one states their preferences, no-one will know.

    Rgds, Andy

  42. #42
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Hmmm, tis is all getting a little pointless.

    If the site doesn't fill your needs then fair enough. If the site prefers to not have cross posted caches then that's also fair enough.

    Personally I see absoloutly no point in cross posting but that's simply my view and by no means right or wrong.

    Terracaching is about quality caches that it's members think are quality! It's about not having one person in overall authority, or even a small group, hence the sponsorship approach. It's your sponsors that OK your cache and to their rules. Once the cache is approved it's down to the finders to score it and that will adjust the cache scoring. All of this is very different from GC's approach.

    Terracache don't want loads of caches close to each other etc, that actualy knocks a cache score down along with all the others in the area. All this is designed to encourage better quality caches than what is currently available on GC.

    I've had a rest from caching over the last few years and coming back to it I was quite shocked at the huge increase in 'naff' caches about.

    Terracaching isn't about numbers and anyone that wants lts of caches to knock up a high count is going to be dissapointed. Terracaching is about getting a high score by doing harder or more valuable caches and not doing naff ones. The quality doesn't relate to whether or not there is a box, nano, or virtual at the end. It relates to the quality of the cache.

    As I've said before if we all sit back and do nothing then that's where it will stay. If people can't put the effort in to set a cache simply because they feel nobody will come for it in years then they probably should just stay away from Terracaching.

    Terracache doesn't want caches cross posted because it wasn't set up for that. It was set up as an alternative to GC.

    If you like the idea of placing a high quality cache then join up and place one. If you place one the next guy close to you that finds Terracaching will log in for the first time and see a cache nearby that they haven't done and go out and try to find it.

    And yes, I know mine is cross posted but that will be fixed this weekend.

  43. #43

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    304

    Default

    The next "proper" cache I place will probably be on TC, there has been a spate of caches going missing (non of mine yet) and some local cachers have been discussing the idea of going premium members only, at least with TC everyone I know can become a member and do my cache without incuring costs and lesson the risk of an undesirable trashing it for fun

  44. #44

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Surrey, near Heathrow
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    Hmmm, tis is all getting a little pointless.

    If the site doesn't fill your needs then fair enough. If the site prefers to not have cross posted caches then that's also fair enough.

    Personally I see absoloutly no point in cross posting but that's simply my view and by no means right or wrong.

    Terracaching is about quality caches that it's members think are quality! It's about not having one person in overall authority, or even a small group, hence the sponsorship approach. It's your sponsors that OK your cache and to their rules. Once the cache is approved it's down to the finders to score it and that will adjust the cache scoring. All of this is very different from GC's approach.

    Terracache don't want loads of caches close to each other etc, that actualy knocks a cache score down along with all the others in the area. All this is designed to encourage better quality caches than what is currently available on GC.

    I've had a rest from caching over the last few years and coming back to it I was quite shocked at the huge increase in 'naff' caches about.

    Terracaching isn't about numbers and anyone that wants lts of caches to knock up a high count is going to be dissapointed. Terracaching is about getting a high score by doing harder or more valuable caches and not doing naff ones. The quality doesn't relate to whether or not there is a box, nano, or virtual at the end. It relates to the quality of the cache.

    As I've said before if we all sit back and do nothing then that's where it will stay. If people can't put the effort in to set a cache simply because they feel nobody will come for it in years then they probably should just stay away from Terracaching.

    Terracache doesn't want caches cross posted because it wasn't set up for that. It was set up as an alternative to GC.

    If you like the idea of placing a high quality cache then join up and place one. If you place one the next guy close to you that finds Terracaching will log in for the first time and see a cache nearby that they haven't done and go out and try to find it.

    And yes, I know mine is cross posted but that will be fixed this weekend.
    I'm not sure why you think it is pointless to discuss it, but as a result of the discussion I think you're right that it is unlikely to fulfill my needs in the forseeable future and there is little point in me persevering.

    I was looking at TC as an workable alternative to GC in case there is a repeat of the recent episode. I wasn't expecting it to just sit there unused as an insurance against such an eventuality, and if it fitted in with what I'm looking for in a listing site I would be a very active participant.

    The reason it doesn't fit me is that I think the policy of "Terracache don't want loads of caches ..." is all too successful. It's a bit unnecessary to worry about getting too many when there are just 5 within 15,000 sq. Kms of me! Irrespective of the quality, you need more than this to make it viable.

    I would be happy to set caches for it if I thought it would make a difference, but I think the policies actively prevent it. I think cross listing would give it a chance to get off the ground and would have been happy to cross list some good ones. But as I can't do that, listing some good caches on TC would mean fewer good caches on GC, and I'm not prepared to compromise GC because of TCs restrictions.

    And quite honestly, as far as I can tell, the policy of raising the standard of caches appears to be less successful than the policy of making sure there aren't enough. The five caches I've studied appear to be no better than the average GC cache (from my perspective they are actually quite a lot worse than the average GC cache), though I acknowledge this is based on the cache page and not on a visit.

    And the other problem is that using the functions I've seen so far it appears to me if there were many more than 2 or 3 dozen in that 15,000 sq Kms area, the facilites provided by the web site would make management very awkward. Hopefully I just hadn't fully found my way round the site.

    I am grateful to you for sponsoring me, because I found it difficult to evaluate properly without becoming a member, but I think maybe I need to come back in 10 years and see if anything has changed by then.

    Rgds, Andy

    Edited to correct a typo.
    Last edited by amberel; 25th June 2008 at 11:11 PM.

  45. #45

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Can anyone tell us the proceedure on TC about caches logged as missing?
    We like Greens

  46. #46
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.a.folk View Post
    Can anyone tell us the proceedure on TC about caches logged as missing?
    Go to the cache page, click Post Log Entry, and select 'Missing' as the log type

  47. #47

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    Go to the cache page, click Post Log Entry, and select 'Missing' as the log type
    That was done last year one of the cachers who failed to find it .
    The other two posted notes .

    We haven't revisited to check to post "missing ourselves ,and I can't presently walk that far on that terrain so it's a no -goer .

    Thing is it doesn't smack of the high quality mentioned in some of the previous posting on this thread that there hasn't been any feed back on cache page ( or have we failed to look in the right place for such feed back ?)
    We like Greens

  48. #48
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by t.a.folk View Post
    That was done last year one of the cachers who failed to find it .
    The other two posted notes .

    We haven't revisited to check to post "missing ourselves ,and I can't presently walk that far on that terrain so it's a no -goer .

    Thing is it doesn't smack of the high quality mentioned in some of the previous posting on this thread that there hasn't been any feed back on cache page ( or have we failed to look in the right place for such feed back ?)
    Sorry, miss read your question.

    Point one would be to raise the question on Terracaching forums as that's where this question belongs.

    If you wanted to raise this issue on GC you would contact the approvers and on TC you would do the same if you failed to get a response from the cache owner. That would be the sponsors of the cache owner.

    I would just add on the remark about the quality. I can find you many many caches on other listing sites that are no longer maintained by the cache owners and no responses recieved. The quality aim is for the quality of the cache. It's an aim that is meant to come about by the scoring system.

    Bu hey, I' getting tired of trying to defend terracaching on my own. If you don't like terracaching then simply give up your memberships and carry on at GC.

    As I've said before it's just a different way of doing it.

    Thank goodness some of us years ago decided to put caches out there on GC when there were none around otherwise many cachers today wouldn't have any on GC either. They'd have logged in, saw nothing, and gone away again.

  49. #49

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    Sorry, miss read your question.

    Point one would be to raise the question on Terracaching forums as that's where this question belongs.

    If you wanted to raise this issue on GC you would contact the approvers and on TC you would do the same if you failed to get a response from the cache owner. That would be the sponsors of the cache owner.
    We have not contacted the owner because (1 )we have not checked the cache ourselves and (2 )there are three logs about the unfound status of the cache and we feel that should be enough to alert the cache owner .(do we have high expectations?)

    I would just add on the remark about the quality. I can find you many many caches on other listing sites that are no longer maintained by the cache owners and no responses recieved.
    Yes .

    The quality aim is for the quality of the cache. It's an aim that is meant to come about by the scoring system.
    In our book a big part of the quality of any cache includes after placement care by owner or appointed caretaker .

    .
    But hey, I' getting tired of trying to defend terracaching on my own. If you don't like terracaching then simply give up your memberships and carry on at GC.

    Hadn't realised I had said we didn't like it .
    We'll think about that one .
    We like Greens

  50. #50

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Icenians wrote:
    But hey, I' getting tired of trying to defend terracaching on my own.
    I don't think TC needs any defending, Kev, it is, as you've said, just a different way of doing it. My only problem with it is the lack of caches anywhere near me, but I'm working on it...
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •