Earth Science Cache

[caughtatwork]

This is a thread split from another to discuss and explore the concept of a new cache type at Geocaching Australia called an Earth Science Cache.

[caughtatwork]

<<Deleted>>

[caughtatwork]

<<Deleted>>

[caughtatwork]

<<Deleted>>

[mattyrx]

Oh, wow! You could have a stall at the market and sell those things! They’d be fun containers to find too.

Maybe rather than a Logless cache type we could have something like an EcoCache. This could be a new cache type that:

• Includes Physical Caches designed to be biodegradable eventually (i.e. not made of metal, glass, plastic but natural materials). Either a biodegradable log book is attached (e.g. people write their name on a popsicle stick and pop it into the container), or a codeword can be used to log it. If someone want to place swag, it should be made from natural things from the area. (i.e. An EcoCache hidden on the beach could hold some shells collected from near by, an EcoCache on in the forest could contain things woven and created from materials found nearby)

• Includes virtual caches, where cachers must answer questions in order to get the codeword to log the cache (like our History caches, and be of a similar theme to GC’s EarthCaches, but allow it to be expanded further than geology, into other natural science stuff including botany and zoology etc.

[Now_To_Morrow]

• Includes virtual caches, where cachers must answer questions in order to get the codeword to log the cache (like our History caches, and be of a similar theme to GC’s EarthCaches, but allow it to be expanded further than geology, into other natural science stuff including botany and zoology etc.

I've wished GC would invent one of those for years. Exactly like an EC but it shows and educates you on the plant and environment side of things like a RAMSAR wetland, or a Gondwana forest remnant, or a stand of ancient Antarctic Beech trees, or the clear change in vegetation at a 'snowline' or the other side of a mountain, or just an ecological zone, or rare plant.

Oh, wow! You could have a stall at the market and sell those things! They’d be fun containers to find too.

Thanks, but they are definitely not sale quality. Not yet anyway. A few more years of playing around with and improving things and I might revisit the idea of selling some.

[caughtatwork]

An Earthcache is specifically supported by The Geological Society of America. https://www.geosociety.org/gsa/fieldexp ... /home.aspx US centric, but they do allow for Earth caches around the world.As they are a Geological Society, they naturally focus on Geology, despite the name being Earth Cache (I suppose Geocache was already take )

Earth Sciences, however, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_sci ... ce_breakup cover so much more and could be considered a superset of which Geology is only a small part.

Again, if there is support for the idea, there's no reason we at GCA cannot have an EarthScience cache type which covered the entire breakup of the Earth Sciences. We already have a Q&A which we use for History caches which could be repurposed. Of course, nothing to stop people from cheating and guessing every answer until they get the codeword. We could appoint (a volunteer) who would be responsible to overseeing every ESCache and made a photo at the location mandatory. No image, the Found It it changed to a Noted. We can't do that automatically as anyone could load a picture of their cat and therefore the system seems a photo and says OK. It's only a human that would check it was of the location.

Discussion, agreement, roles and a week of coding and we can make that happen if the community decide to. Then you get your wish to hide a ESCache which is not geology specific.

[wayn0]

Again, if there is support for the idea, there's no reason we at GCA cannot have an EarthScience cache type which covered the entire breakup of the Earth Sciences.

I’m someone who would search for this cache type and also create some.

[wayn0]

'Logless cache idea' content moved to
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20475

[mattyrx]

I know a lot of cachers that prefer virtual style of caches over physical ones. They’ll actively seek them out as a prioritiy. National parks (in NSW & QLD) are definitely a problem when it comes to hiding physical caches. The approval process is exactly what you’d expect from a government run branch, long and drawn out - resulting in people having use multi caches if they want to have a physical style hide.

Personally I like finding a box at GZ, but I know more and more people are becoming fans of virtual locations - GC have released another round of Virtuals. They’ve also now got Adventure Labs, and what was one a difficult cache type to hide, with stringent criteria - Earthcaches can now be listed anywhere you find a bit of rock as long as you can write 500 words about it. Groundspeak know that virtuals are popular too.

I think Wayn0’s right. We should jump on board with a ESCache - we could leave the container type open to include all physical sizes + virtual, or just keep it as virtual. (The home made ‘basket case’ would be a cool thing to hide too ) I reckon we’ll see a good uptake in this - especially in places where physical geocaching game pieces aren’t allowed. Virtuals are already popular here - the average virtual gets 13 finds, vs a traditional which gets nearly 11 (https://geocaching.com.au/stats/graphs/ ... cache_type)

I think it’s good that this can be opened to the wider world of Earth Science, rather than just geology. There’s only so many rocks you can get excited about before Earthcaches seem to start repeating themselves. This is something that I think we’ll do better than Groundspeak. A community volunteer could work to oversee that logging requirements (GZ photo) are met, or maybe we could allow cache owners to convert Found logs to Note logs for this cache type, and they can verify images themselves. I know there could be disagreements etc. in allowing a CO to modify a log - so maybe a volunteer would be a better option.

I think it could be good for us to lead the way on this, and as much as I prefer physical caches, there’s definitely a place in our game for some more virtual caches that provide a bit of a education on something sciencey.

[caughtatwork]

Great discussion.

I'm not a lawyer

Victorian Litering Act:
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/ ... 198799.pdf

"Deposit" in relation to litter, means the act of intentionally parting with possession of the litter or of allowing the litter to go out of one's possession.

"Litter" includes—
(a) any solid or liquid domestic or commercial waste, refuse, debris or rubbish and, without limiting the generality of the above, includes any glass, metal, plastic, paper, fabric, wood, food, garden remnants and clippings, soil, sand, concrete or rocks; and
(b) any other material, substance or thing deposited in a place if its size, shape, nature or volume makes the place where it is deposited disorderly or detrimentally affects the proper use of that place; and
(c) any unsolicited handbills or other advertising material—

A cache is not waste, refuse, debris or rubbish. In fact, it often has a value that the cache will likely want to recover.
A cache (when placed out of sight) is not disorderly and doesn't detrimentally affect the use of the place.

Arguably, a cache in a tree hole is a problem as it does detrimentally affect the USE of that place for fauna.
Arguably, a mint tin magnetised under a park bench, is not a problem.

So mint tins are better than boxes in the bush

But seriously, ESCaches can be done. I'll break this out into another thread, so we can see what Earth Science Caches are all about and continue the discussion and we can list the requirements of what we want done. We can continue the discussion of EcoCaches here.

[mattyrx]

I suppose we need to start with the definition of Earth Science. It seems to be reasonably loose – dictionary.com says its “any of various sciences, as geography, geology, or meteorology, that deal with the earth, its composition, or any of its changing aspects”. Britannica says its “the fields of study concerned with the solid Earth, its waters, and the air that envelops it.”. Wikipedia says “ Earth science or geoscience includes all fields of natural science related to the planet Earth” I think not being too strict with the definition is important. I like how Wikipedia breaks down Earth Science into different ‘spheres’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_sci ... 's_spheres. People will be able to create these caches for fields that interest them, so it’s good to have a wide range of potential subject matter.

I’d like to think Earth Science caches could be hidden to show ecological and zoological things and this definition includes them.

I think Question and Answers and/or a photograph for proof is not unreasonable logging requirements, and that we should trial a function for this cache type where the CO has the function to change the ‘Found’ log to a ‘Note’ if they determine that the logging requirements of their cache have not been met.

If this gets up and we give it a go – but something is not quite right, or we decide we need to change something (i.e. tighten up the definition, introduce a volunteer to check photos in ‘Found Logs’) then that’s OK too.

The cache type allows for plenty of creativity, but some things we might need to make clear when defining the new cache type e.g.
• should these caches be findable with only one visit to GZ, or could you request the cacher take multiple trips to a location to photograph it over different seasons/time.
• If you’re requiring photo evidence of something like a mountain and you turn up and it’s foggy and un-viewable, will a photo of you at the lookout with the foggy background do as logging evidence, or do you need to come back another day?
• If a ESCache is listed, do we allow people to log the cache if they have visited the place and have taken a photo prior to the caches listing?

Personally I think we can let cache owners set their own rules about logging requirements, but if they want specific things done they need to make sure it’s clear in the cache description. The difficulty rating of the cache should also be adjusted to meet the complexity requirements of getting the evidence.

[caughtatwork]

I like the idea of allowing the CO to change to a Noted if there is no photo. We can't stop people brute forcing answers, so Q&A and a photo would be a double check. Then the CO can mediate their own cache. The log owner can always change it back to a Found It when they meet the criteria. The risk is that a "tit for tat" fight erupts. We can burn that bridge when we get to it

[Now_To_Morrow]

I think not being too strict with the definition is important. I like how Wikipedia breaks down Earth Science into different ‘spheres’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_sci ... 's_spheres. People will be able to create these caches for fields that interest them, so it’s good to have a wide range of potential subject matter.

I’d like to think Earth Science caches could be hidden to show ecological and zoological things and this definition includes them.

I like this a lot.

I think Question and Answers and/or a photograph for proof is not unreasonable logging requirements

I agree

The cache type allows for plenty of creativity, but some things we might need to make clear when defining the new cache type e.g.
• should these caches be findable with only one visit to GZ, or could you request the cacher take multiple trips to a location to photograph it over different seasons/time.
• If you’re requiring photo evidence of something like a mountain and you turn up and it’s foggy and un-viewable, will a photo of you at the lookout with the foggy background do as logging evidence, or do you need to come back another day?
• If a ESCache is listed, do we allow people to log the cache if they have visited the place and have taken a photo prior to the caches listing?

Personally I think we can let cache owners set their own rules about logging requirements, but if they want specific things done they need to make sure it’s clear in the cache description. The difficulty rating of the cache should also be adjusted to meet the complexity requirements of getting the evidence.

All excellent points I can agree with.

Can we do this? Can we, can we, can we???

[wayn0]

The above Wikipedia links provide a great array of topic ideas!

Personally I think we can let cache owners set their own rules about logging requirements, but if they want specific things done they need to make sure it’s clear in the cache description. The difficulty rating of the cache should also be adjusted to meet the complexity requirements of getting the evidence.

I like the idea of cache owners having the freedom to set their own logging requirements. Innovation loves freedom.