Terracaching in the UK ...

[t.a.folk]

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...

I had an item in mind for a locationless terracache .We checked on the item this week and it's been removed .So it's thinking caps on again .

[Icenians]

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?)

You asked how to raise the issue and I gave you the answer!

In our book a big part of the quality of any cache includes after placement care by owner or appointed caretaker .

In my book also but you seem to want to condem the quality aspect on the basis of one cache and cacher ignoring his emails. There could be many reasons for this from lazy to death.

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

The tone of your response to me providing the answer to your question suggested that you indeed didn't like the way the site worked.

My apologies if this is not the case.

[amberel]

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.

My apologies if you feel that my posts have been putting you under pressure to argue the TC case. As I said before, I have found the discussion very useful - without having the discussion and being sponsored on TC I was unable to get a clear picture of what the site offered.

Rgds, Andy

[The Hornet]

It seems I have replied to this thread in this other posting.

[Happy Humphrey]

Sorry if this is obvious, but for those looking for an alternative: there's Navicache. I looked (unsuccessfully) for a couple of Robin Lovelock caches recently using Navicache for information. They are also posted on GC.com (but are archived, as are all of his).

There seems to be a fair number around and they CAN be cross-posted.
Handy also for those caches that will not be allowed under Groundspeak guidelines - chuck your cache down at the back of the gravestone then list it at Navicache; no need to bother the vicar!

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Handy also for those caches that will not be allowed under Groundspeak guidelines - chuck your cache down at the back of the gravestone then list it at Navicache; no need to bother the vicar!

Which is a situation which risks caching in the UK, eventually being regulated by the Government.Due to large organisations complaining to them that we don't self regulate ourselves. This is something which would worry me if Terracaching ever become really popular over here, as they don't seem to have a central set of guidelines. Just what the cacher placers sponsors feel is acceptable.

Groundspeaks Big Brother approach does not fit every situation, but some guidelines that all listing sites which list caches in the UK makes sense. Otherwise all the hard work negotiating agreements applied on GC will go down the pan

And that is my personal Non GC Reviewer opinion folks.

[Wadders]

Ok, I am newish here, been here before a while back and now trying to make myself at home, so i may have missed this next bit!

What or who are the alternatives to GC.com, I see Terracaching mentioned here and i have just checked out Navicache.
Are these the only two, are they the main two?
Which one has the best chance of "Taking off" as a serious alternative to GC?

Wadders

[Happy Humphrey]

Which is a situation which risks caching in the UK, eventually being regulated by the Government.Due to large organisations complaining to them that we don't self regulate ourselves.

I was being facetious originally, of course. But there's no way that the Government can 'regulate' geocaching: it's simply not practical. Anyone can hide a cache anywhere at any time and there's nothing that official bodies can do about that. They may be able to limit some of the type of caching we're used to: that's about it.

[Happy Humphrey]

Ok, I am newish here, been here before a while back and now trying to make myself at home, so i may have missed this next bit!

What or who are the alternatives to GC.com, I see Terracaching mentioned here and i have just checked out Navicache.
Are these the only two, are they the main two?
Which one has the best chance of "Taking off" as a serious alternative to GC?

Wadders

I don't think that either has a chance of matching GC.com. They're miles behind. But they're there as an option, which is valuable.

[Alan White]

Groundspeaks Big Brother approach does not fit every situation, but some guidelines that all listing sites which list caches in the UK makes sense.

I shouldn't think that many people would say that there should be no rules at all.

It's the unclear, unnecessary, unpublished and inconsistently applied rules that annoy people

[The Hornet]

I'm not a great user of Terracaching (at the moment) but I think the "peer review" system could work well over here. I suspect a majority of UK cachers (and others worldwide, but we're discussing the UK here) are sensible people who have the interests of the sport in mind. I would guess that any cache "chucked behind a gravestone" (yes I know it was a humorous example ) would soon fall foul of peer review and would die.

I think the UK caching community have a pretty good idea of what makes for acceptable caching behaviour here. Indeed, it could well be argued that the local community has a better idea what works here than a self proclaimed governing company half way round the world.

And that's from someone who spent five years imposing those guidelines on the local community hmy:!! But there again, I had my problems with them from time to time, eventually deciding that I couldn't impose certain edicts any more.

[Alan White]

I think the "peer review" system could work well over here.

It might, but it would have to be a much better system than the one used by TC. As I understand from this and similar threads, any TC member can sponsor any prospective member whether or not the two are known to each other. And the new member can then immediately sponsor other new members. If TC had the volume of members and caches that Groundspeak does then this method would very quickly cause chaos and the quality (read: adherence to sensible rules) of caches would be abysmal. Churchyard micros would be the least of our problems.

A peer-peer system would have to have limitations in place so that members could only sponsor new members if they were known to each other. (No, I don't know how that could be enforced.) And there would have to be restrictions on how soon after a joining a new member could sponsor further new members.

I suspect a majority of UK cachers (and others worldwide, but we're discussing the UK here) are sensible people who have the interests of the sport in mind.

I'm sure that's true, but there has to be a procedure to deal with the rest. I fear that peer-peer couldn't achieve that.

A slight quibble: TC isn't peer-review. It's a hierarchical system.

I would guess that any cache "chucked behind a gravestone" (yes I know it was a humorous example ) would soon fall foul of peer review and would die.

I've found a few caches in churchyards. I recall one that did indeed die from peer review after a few finders thought it inappropriate. But that one was placed behind quite a new, obviously recently visited, headstone.

I recall another churchyard cache placed behind a headstone by a well known local cacher which lasted for two and half years with no adverse comment at all.

Indeed, it could well be argued that the local community has a better idea what works here than a self proclaimed governing company half way round the world.

And has been. It seems obvious to me that locals are always going to be better at running local affairs than any distant authority, though there does need to be some level of generic framework. But as you know, local management is never going to happen under the current setup.

[nobbynobbs]

I was being facetious originally, of course. But there's no way that the Government can 'regulate' geocaching: it's simply not practical. Anyone can hide a cache anywhere at any time and there's nothing that official bodies can do about that. They may be able to limit some of the type of caching we're used to: that's about it.

If they wanted to get really funny they could accuse us of littering, petty and bloody minded but it would mean a great deal of hassle for the community in general.

The major problem we would have would be losing the large agreements that we already hold and not getting any more. There is a word of mouth undercurrent that can go from land owner to land owner where , if we gain the reputation of irresponsible behaviour etc. , we can pretty much guarantee that we will face almost a blanket ban.
We have already had to fight this belief when negotiating several agreements up until now. We appear to be winning the battle but it could easily turn the other way.

[Happy Humphrey]

But my point was, what can they do? They can "ban" as much as they like, but it doesn't stop geocaching. It would just stop GC.com listings of caches: quite a different thing.

[The Hornet]

I recall another churchyard cache placed behind a headstone by a well known local cacher which lasted for two and half years with no adverse comment at all.

The thought had not escaped me during all these discussions!

[t.a.folk]

If they wanted to get really funny they could accuse us of littering, petty and bloody minded but it would mean a great deal of hassle for the community in general.

The major problem we would have would be losing the large agreements that we already hold and not getting any more. There is a word of mouth undercurrent that can go from land owner to land owner where , if we gain the reputation of irresponsible behaviour etc. , we can pretty much guarantee that we will face almost a blanket ban.
We have already had to fight this belief when negotiating several agreements up until now. We appear to be winning the battle but it could easily turn the other way.

The present word of mouth looks like it must be favourable....
The I.W. Council have very recently placed some caches .
LNR and SSSI land included .

[nobbynobbs]

But my point was, what can they do? They can "ban" as much as they like, but it doesn't stop geocaching. It would just stop GC.com listings of caches: quite a different thing.

to use the new forest as an example.

they give one of their staff a gps and they go and remove every cache on their land. they then talk to every other forestry commision about this bunch of irresponsible......

[Happy Humphrey]

I know: but how do they know where they are if they're not on GC.com?

[nobbynobbs]

Just in case you weren't aware, they own computers..... wouldn't take too much effort to find them on the other sites.

The point underlying all this is that we want to promote responsible caching in this country working with land owners to expand caching.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

I think Allan's comment has hit the nail on the head

And has been. It seems obvious to me that locals are always going to be better at running local affairs than any distant authority, though there does need to be some level of generic framework. But as you know, local management is never going to happen under the current setup.

It's not peer Review we need, but community oversight/management, providing the framework for a Team of Reviewers to work within.

I think of several examples why Terracaching's Peer Review falls down.

Cache Owner has a cache in a Nature Reserve, when this is pointed out to them,some of the standard replies are" there are no signs anywhere saying that" or " my cache is at the fence, so outside the boundary" when the actual boundary can be10-20m past the fence line

Or someone who is extremely happy to see a tightening of permission for caches in Graveyards. But who also believes it's perfectly acceptable to place caches in Dry Stone Walls.

Community oversight/management would allow the local Reviewers to fully work in the best interest of the local community.

Hey I can dream can't I h34r:

[The Hornet]

It's not peer Review we need, but community oversight/management, providing the framework for a Team of Reviewers to work within.

..... and the authority of those who supply the listing facilities to implement that community oversight/management. Unfortunately that crucial element was removed in April (IMHO admittedly).

[Happy Humphrey]

Just in case you weren't aware, they own computers..... wouldn't take too much effort to find them on the other sites.

The point underlying all this is that we want to promote responsible caching in this country working with land owners to expand caching.

I agree with what you say...I was merely addressing the particular point about an overall Government ban (as mentioned by Deceangi). Although the caching we know now may be severely limited in some areas, there's no possibility of an actual ban being workable.

I'm aware that some official bodies such as in the New Forest may be awash with resources so they can enthusiastically appoint officers to go out geocache-pinching every once in a while: solving puzzles, checking web forums etc. for clues to the locations. But that's only one tiny area of Great Britain. What would be done about the Motorway Mayhem-type caches all round the country for instance?

[fraggle69]

I wonder how long it takes before my new locationless terracache is published, and then how long after that before I am archived lol.

tick tock tick tock

[Wadders]

I don't think that either has a chance of matching GC.com. They're miles behind. But they're there as an option, which is valuable.

Then perhaps the two of them need to join forces

[SidAndBob]

How about giving membership to anyone who places an accepted hide. It would be great to see a site that really encourages quality hides.

Personally I found that getting sponsorship wasn't a problem (you don't need to know anyone), but I can see that it would put some off.

[agentmancuso]

You may - or may not - be interested in a part-time cacher's view of TC.

My main interests are climbing relative hills and trigpointing. Geocaching is something I enjoy as an 'extra' when either a) it fits in with one of these other main activities, or b) it's something handy I can do in a spare hour.

The caches I like best are generally a fair distance from the road, on open ground. For me urban micros hold very little interest per se, unless I'm in the immediate vicinity anyway. I joined the TC site a while back, as it seemed to promise more in the way of hillwalking-type caches. But I haven't really followed it up because this notion was entirely flawed - TC caches are no more likely to be remote than GS caches. I wouldn't mind the charge of elitism in the slightest if it was well founded, but unless the TC caches have a different 'character' in some sense from GS caches, then the whole thing seems a bit pointless.

The main difference from GS seems to be a requirement to make the cacher jump through hoops to 'prove' their find!

[fraggle69]

I think you just need to look at it as another website, listing caches to go and find.
All this talk of elite caches for elite cachers to go find is a bit rubbish, I think ppl just want to see top caches on the site to encourage more cachers to use it.
I like the retro way in which they do it at TC.com, it's almost inspired me to publish some of my own caches on my own webspace .

It would be good in the future if there were someway to put coins and TB's in the TC.com caches.
If terracaches were searchable from gc.com but not listed there, if that makes sense, then perhaps some form of integration could takle place to enable TB's/coins to travel the boundaries. I am sure all this will need a lot of discussion from both parties.

[amberel]

It would be good in the future if there were someway to put coins and TB's in the TC.com caches.
If terracaches were searchable from gc.com but not listed there, if that makes sense, then perhaps some form of integration could takle place to enable TB's/coins to travel the boundaries. I am sure all this will need a lot of discussion from both parties.

Before any useful discussion could take place it would need some goodwill to exist between the sites. If my understanding of the reason for the cross-listing ban is correct, such goodwill is conspicuous by its absence, in one direction at least.

Rgds, Andy

[The Hornet]

If terracaches were searchable from gc.com but not listed there, if that makes sense, then perhaps some form of integration could takle place to enable TB's/coins to travel the boundaries. I am sure all this will need a lot of discussion from both parties.

I think the term "Hell Freeze Over" is applicable here unfortunately.

[markandlynn]

Ive spoken to a few US terracachers and they say the rating stuff works, and quite a few number boosters get archived.

The problem over here is the one of volume. The top rated cache out of 5 is probaly by the law of averages not going to be as good as the top rated cache out of 1000.

The features TC has are the ones GC have refused to use. Keywords in logbooks to prove finds, finders can rate the caches they find. A 5 /5 is worth more TC points than a 1/1. You can compare your TC score against another players TC score. Built in geocheckers. In other words all those stats people have asked GC to implement.

But until it gets some serious numbers of caches its not going to get the hits.