Current GPX files for Australia

[Albany Canucks]

Two questions:

1. The wiki page about GPX states the following: " Periodically updated GPX files of geocaching.com caches for each state of Australia and also for New Zealand's North and South Islands are available from http://www.roblisa.com/geocache. "
Is this accurate? The referenced page at roblisa.com states that "The data is current as of 08/10/2007", and the file I downloaded for WA seemed quite limited in the number of caches it contained, presumably only accurate as of 2007? So is the Wiki incorrect in stating that the roblisa.com page gives periodically updated files - as far as I can tell they haven't been updated in a long time and only have limited and outdated contents?

2. The Wiki page also has a links for geocaching.com.au caches, such as: http://geocaching.com.au/caches/gca/au/wa.gpx
My understanding is that these only contain geocaching.com.au specific caches, and not the ones from geocaching.com. My question is: Are caches still being actively added to geocaching.com.au? Several of the ones in that GPX file were simply TrigPoints rather than traditional caches - is that typical of the geocaching.com.au ones?

[caughtatwork]

1. That data is out of date.
It now reads:
Geocaching.com GPX Files
You must join geocaching.com and pay a membership fee to obtain GPX files from the Groundspeak geocaching.com site.

2. Yes, indeed. GCA GPX files contain, strangely enough, GCA caches only.
http://geocaching.com.au/stats/graphs/g ... cumulative
A big chunk are indeed TrigPoints (a type of geocache).
Other than that, there are cache being hidden in WA, but they are at a slower rate than some other states.
If you want to exclude TrigPoints and get a GCA GPX file mailed to you (free, of course), set up a my query http://wiki.geocaching.com.au/wiki/My_Query

[Albany Canucks]

Thanks for the helpful reply.

Please pardon my ignorance, but why would people choose to list a cache on geocaching.com.au instead of geocaching.com, where it is likely to get more traffic and geocachers?

[CraigRat]

The freedom to do what they want without arbitrary guidelines

....we allow cache types that GC.com don't such as Movable, locationless and virtual goecaches

....as a way to thanks those who do work on the site

....because its not all about the numbers for some folks.

....and just because.....

(and many more reasons)

Contrary to popular belief, Geocaching.com is not the offical geocaching site, nor did they invent the game.

Here's a good summary: http://wiki.geocaching.com.au/wiki/GCA_vs_GC

Finds on GCA caches are most certainly on the rise in most states too.

Heres a graph that makes c@w and me smile:

[Albany Canucks]

Thanks for the reply and information! That's very helpful in explaining the differences. The wiki link was particularly useful!

I ran my own query for all GCA caches in Western Australia, excluding Trigs, and the resulting GPX file was 730kB. In contrast the W.A. file on the wiki page for GPX obviously includes Trigs and is 5,049kB - more than 5x the size! Does this mean that Trigs make up over 80% of the GCA geocaches in W.A., or did I do something wrong with my query?

Thanks again for all the help.

[caughtatwork]

http://geocaching.com.au/stats/graphs/g ... lative.png
The big spike was the TP load.
There are around 100 non TP caches in WA.
But you could be a trail blazer and get out there and hide GCA for the masses to find

[Albany Canucks]

Ah, okay, thanks for the info. I live in Albany, and I'm only seeing about one dozen non-TrigPoint caches between Albany and Perth, that's correct then?

Cheers!

[Albany Canucks]

But you could be a trail blazer and get out there and hide GCA for the masses to find

Perhaps indeed! To what extent is there interest in virtual caches? I notice that there are not that many in W.A., and I'd possibly be interested in adding a number of these for my coastal town (Albany, WA), perhaps for some of the lesser known but picturesque locations. I'm still trying to think of some kind of simple challenge to accompany the virtual cache as an incentive for people to go out and do it, rather than just take a picture of the area with a GPS in the frame. The Wiki is very brief on the subject - is there any more information on it, or can anyone give further hints and/or suggestions? Is this worth undertaking?

[caughtatwork]

The wiki entry has been expanded a little and now includes a link to the graph showing hides and finds.

This one is specifically for WA.
http://geocaching.com.au/stats/graphs/g ... ds_virtual

Experience says that Virtual caches are best used when the area is of historical importance, environmental significant, culturally sensitive and there is no room for a physical container.

Now the last point can be countered with an offset of multi-cache where you collect some information from the place of interest and then head somewhere else to find the container. That will depend on how far you need to travel to get to the actual physical cache. Quite a few people will expect it to be within walking distance, but that's not always possible.

Multi-caches are not quite as popular as traditional caches and virtual caches probably fall behind Multi-caches in the range of popularity.

In general, I would always try to hide a physical cache and set a traditional or multi-cache. The recent Burke & Wills virtual caches are an example of areas of interest (as part of a huge theme) and a lot are in places where cache maintenance will be a challenge or they are in sensitive areas.

As a rule of thumb, I would say most people prefer the physical cache to a virtual cache, so whereven you get the chance to list a physical cache, I think the community would appreciate those a lot more than a virtual cache.

Keep in mind that there can be a "money see monkey do" attitude. The more physical caches you hide, the more physical caches will be seen and followed. That starts people down the road of hiding and seeking physical caches which is what I think most people would prefer to find.