Thanks Thanks:  4
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: Revisiting the container

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Worthing
    Posts
    42

    Default Revisiting the container

    Some ideas that crossed my mind about Landowner Permissions and containers ...

    When there is a problem with a container (and not about our behaviour as cachers), it seems to be mainly because it is seen as litter or considered a security risk. What about if we used an item that is not hollow, with official Geocaching markings and a unique ID. In the same way we buy a Groundspeak tag for a TB, we could also purchase this type of cache from them. This item could be handled in the same way we record a discovered TB. Instead of signing the log, you could take note of*the unique ID and log that on the website as a find ... no more damp logs [:P].

    Because it is not hollow (like a small ingot or coin?), it would not be seen as a security risk. If those items were identical in color and shape, the authorities could recognize them more easily when they are found. The official look of the item would also make it less likely to be seen as litter, no moldy or smelly content to put off a landowner or muggle.

    This is not something we would use routinely. I see that as a tool to negotiate an agreement with a private MLO or a government body not too keen on the traditional container. I understand that a solid item would make it impossible to swap items or move TBs. At the end, when geocaching clashes with the muggle world, I would rather have this option then face a ban on physical caches.

    I realize that this post should be on Groundspeak website as it is in fact a new type of cache. I am more interested to know the opinion of an experienced GAGB member, who faced a situation involving a container problem with a MLO. Would the use of a standardized and solid item help to negotiate an agreement or avoid a total ban on physical caches?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Land of the Bear and Ragged Staff!
    Posts
    843

    Default

    Wanna swap numbers of the caches I've found, with the numbers of the caches you've found?

    Can't see Groundspeak going for it.
    No log to sign.
    If there's no log to sign, it's not a Geocache.

    (Yes, Earthcaches have no log to sign, but they didn't do well on Waymarking, and they are sponsored by an outside body!)
    I have a Geocaching problem...
    Work gets in the way!

    * Cache Walker -Caching by byway, not highway! CacheWalker.co.uk
    Walking and Caching in Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire areas

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Worthing
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Why do I have the impression your numbers are in the 1000s? And no, I am very happy with our finds, loads of laughing children and fun family time memories ... there is no way I would trade that!

    I was thinking about the Royal Parks when I wrote this post, would they have been more receptive, if they would have been offered another type of physical container?

    It would make sense for Grounspeak to offer alternatives, rather then having to refuse the publication of a physical cache because a landowner is put off by the traditional container.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Carterton Oxon
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Being a bit of a devil's advocate - I know of several caches with no log to sign - one in Cheddar George, and one in the Great Tythe Barn at Great Coxwell - also the one at the top of Snowdon So I can see the point that Angrybirds is making - special caches for special places ?
    Si vis pacem para bellum

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Land of the Bear and Ragged Staff!
    Posts
    843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngryBirds View Post
    Why do I have the impression your numbers are in the 1000s? And no, I am very happy with our finds, loads of laughing children and fun family time memories ... there is no way I would trade that!

    I was thinking about the Royal Parks when I wrote this post, would they have been more receptive, if they would have been offered another type of physical container?

    It would make sense for Grounspeak to offer alternatives, rather then having to refuse the publication of a physical cache because a landowner is put off by the traditional container.
    Any way of 'logging' a cache, without signing a log is open to abuse...
    If it's a 'Unique ID number' there's nothing stopping cachers from writing it down, and swapping numbers with other cachers/listing on a website so others can claim a find, without going to the cache.

    Well known as 'Armchair Caching' very popular amongst the Ger.... who try to log the old Virtual caches -For the Numbers- without ever getting anywhere near the cache.
    I have a Geocaching problem...
    Work gets in the way!

    * Cache Walker -Caching by byway, not highway! CacheWalker.co.uk
    Walking and Caching in Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire areas

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S. E. Wales
    Posts
    1,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Palujia View Post
    Being a bit of a devil's advocate - I know of several caches with no log to sign - one in Cheddar George, and one in the Great Tythe Barn at Great Coxwell - also the one at the top of Snowdon So I can see the point that Angrybirds is making - special caches for special places ?
    If these are physical caches (i.e. not Virtuals or Earthcaches) listed on Geocaching.com then they should have a log of some discription. If new cachers find these caches it gives the idea that it's OK not to have a logbook/log strip in a physical cache - I suggest you bring such caches to the attention of a reviewer.

    From Groundspeak's Cache Listing Guidelines:

    "For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit."

    Some other listing sites such as Opencaching allow the logging of caches by using a 'password' that may be found at the cache location.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Worthing
    Posts
    42

    Default

    I understand that all physical caches must have at least a container and a log that can be signed. I am also aware of the danger of cheating, if you do not have*a log to sign. Personnaly, I admit that I will never double check the logs in my own caches to find a*cheater, I have better things to do. If it is the only reason why we have to sign a log, then it seems to be a sad one.

    My main concern is to avoid a ban and to have the right tools to ask for a ban to be reviewed. We have talented GAGB leaders/members, capable of bringing important agreements or saving bad situations ... but I do not think it is enough by itself.

    Geocaching is completely dependant on the good will of landowners. While most seem happy with our tupperwares and micros, maybe others would like something more "formal". Why not offer an alternative when agreements do not go our way? It does not seem right to give cheaters legitimacy, by blocking logless caches.

    I was reading a post yesterday about UK trigs vs US survey markers, why not make the geocaching experience wholesome by allowing innovation, rather then relegating logless caches to Waymarking? I hope Geocaching is not aiming at only pleasing the number seekers, that is not my cup of tea?
    Last edited by AngryBirds; 13th July 2010 at 06:52 PM. Reason: Too blunt and offensive

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S. E. Wales
    Posts
    1,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngryBirds View Post
    I was reading a post yesterday about UK trigs vs US survey markers, why not make the geocaching experience wholesome by allowing innovation, rather then relegating logless caches to Waymarking? I hope Geocaching is not aiming at only pleasing the number seekers, that is not my cup of tea?
    May I suggest you make Groundspeak representatives aware of your opinions on these matters by adding your comments to these two Topics in the Feedback forum:

    Benchmarks outside the USA You'll notice that a number of UK based cachers are asking GSP to allow UK Trigs and BMs to be logged.

    Bring Back Virtual Caches To date, over 2700 caching accounts have said they'd like to see Virtual caches brought back to geocaching.com although there are a lot of conditional clauses being suggested! Many people are saying that they'd like to see Virtuals return but only under some sort of tight rein, similar to the way that Earth Caches are now reviewed, so that a Wow! factor can be preserved.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Worthing
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Now, if only the Elephants in London could be permanent fixtures ... how cool would that be to hunt for them as Virtual Caches

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Brizzle
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Personally I think a cache without a log defeats the object of the game and turning it into something else - Waymarking. There's already a site for that.

    I'll be the first to admit that I think that the return of virtuals is a very bad idea. I enjoy the ones that are still out there and the fact there are very few adds a special quality to them.
    However if virtuals were reintroduced we would be inundated. Hiding a virtual requires minimal effort and maintenance so will be an easier option for many than taking time to hide a proper cache. Not going to do our hobby any good in the long run......

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nr Pershore, Worcs
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngryBirds View Post
    I understand that all physical caches must have at least a container and a log that can be signed ......
    I know of at least one cache where there is no container but the cache is the log - not a bit of wood either!
    Kept me guessing for a while

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by *mouse* View Post
    However if virtuals were reintroduced we would be inundated. Hiding a virtual requires minimal effort and maintenance so will be an easier option for many than taking time to hide a proper cache. Not going to do our hobby any good in the long run......
    I tend to agree with that. The biggest threat to the credibility of caching is the placing of thought-free caches. ( I'm not necessarily referring to pointless urban nanos/micros hung on fences ...hmy. Allowing Virtuals would license numpties to call every second lamppost a cache, making the whole thing meaningless. And as we already have a dumping ground for meaningless caches, there would seem little advantage in it.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S. E. Wales
    Posts
    1,223

    Default

    I would like Virtual to return... but only if they could be under a very tight rein, rather like Earthcaches are now. Maybe a panel of reviewers for each country/state who would be prepared to decide/vote on whether the submission had the necessary Wow! factor.

    (... or maybe call it the X Factor as it would be about special locations? )

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Land of the Bear and Ragged Staff!
    Posts
    843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs Blorenge View Post
    (... or maybe call it the X Factor as it would be about special locations? )
    ... and cachers can phone in to say if they like/dislike the cache, and raise money to pay the reviewers.




    :lol:
    I have a Geocaching problem...
    Work gets in the way!

    * Cache Walker -Caching by byway, not highway! CacheWalker.co.uk
    Walking and Caching in Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire areas

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Worthing
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs Blorenge View Post
    I would like Virtual to return... but only if they could be under a very tight rein, rather like Earthcaches are now. Maybe a panel of reviewers for each country/state who would be prepared to decide/vote on whether the submission had the necessary Wow! factor.

    (... or maybe call it the X Factor as it would be about special locations? )
    I probably missed something about the appearance, then dissapearance of Virtual Caches on geocaching.com ... and the reasoning behind all that.

    What I understood, reading the forums, is that some people felt that they were misused and abused by some cachers? Is that not also true for Physical Caches? Why would a Virtual Cache be under more scrutiny then a poorly placed/boring Physical Cache, an innacurate IPhone one or a Power Trail?

    The forums are active with posts from cachers complaining about Physical Caches. From what I can see, it is a general problem affecting all types of caches?

Posting Permissions

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