cache listing - request for comments

[ideology]

we are considering expanding geocaching australia to allow people to list new caches on this site

the main reason is to free us from the secondary site's listing rules which we think are stifling geocaching in australia. our main beef was with their decision to stop listing moveable caches. we think they were a great innovation, adding a unique time-sensitive element to the sport.

we are thinking of something along the lines of
- allow moveable caches
- allow time-sensitive caches like the old fathers day etc ones that the 2 Dogs put out
- allow caches with rough or no coordinates (useful for puzzle caches)
- allow more virtual caches (ie where you go somewhere searching for something other than tupperware)
- caches have decent waypoint names. instead of GC1234, have METRO or whatever (selectable by the owner)
- no approvals required - instant cache listing
- more specific descriptors like the cache selector (eg "more than 4 km from track" "baby care available" etc) naturally these would be optional
- allow logging caches through your mobile phone
- downloadable GPX with no log limits, etc
- watchlists where you could see who is watching each cache
- instant alerts of new caches in your area
- more stuff which we haven't thought of yet

the main fuzzy area is probably not requiring approvals. we believe that the cache owner should be responsible for the cache, not the listing site. we welcome your thoughts on this.

what do you think of the concept? what other features would be useful?

[riblit]

Looks like a reasonable idea. I like the moveable caches and not having to jump through hoops to put out a virtual cache. Being able to list a cache without coordinates is better than having to list a random location and noting that it is wrong in the description.
Caches currently have a name that can be used as a waypoint name, the GC number looks to me to be a representation of the primary key. Are you thinking of using a non visible primary key?
Approvals (or not) - I've thought about this issue. Once a cacher has put a few caches out its usually easy to tell if they know what they are doing. My first thought is to fly with it and see how it goes. Cache saturation in an area is one side effect that could come from this. Would you be able to list the nearest caches and their distances when a new cache location is entered? It could save having 3 caches within 50ft of each other at a popular location.

other features: Some sort of mass logging facility for those who find 20 caches a weekend. Maybe an xml file upload with log details.

[Mix]

How about self-approval? (or call it self-review) <br>
As you hide a cache you then go through a checklist, your yes/no answers are viewable and if you lie finders will soon tell other seekers. <br>
This means for example: <br>
I check “noÂâ€

[Derringer]

we are thinking of something along the lines of
- allow moveable caches
- allow time-sensitive caches like the old fathers day etc ones that the 2 Dogs put out
- allow caches with rough or no coordinates (useful for puzzle caches)
- allow more virtual caches (ie where you go somewhere searching for something other than tupperware)
- caches have decent waypoint names. instead of GC1234, have METRO or whatever (selectable by the owner)
- no approvals required - instant cache listing
- more specific descriptors like the cache selector (eg "more than 4 km from track" "baby care available" etc) naturally these would be optional
- allow logging caches through your mobile phone
- downloadable GPX with no log limits, etc
- watchlists where you could see who is watching each cache
- instant alerts of new caches in your area

I agree that Geocaching should be more flexible.
All the points mentioned would for us expand the sport.
We have done a couple of moveable caches and enjoyed them.
We believe Virtual caches should be allowed - they are an environmentally friendly form of geocaching.
We believe in the principal of self approval, as the owner of the cache it is the owners responsibility to ensure the cache complies with the general "parameters" of the sport.

How about self-approval? (or call it self-review)

As you hide a cache you then go thought a checklist, your yes/no answers are viewable

An excellent idea.

The question of caches too close to each other.
This could happen in many popular areas - I personally would not place a cache in the same locale of another, ie the same hill/lookout/lake etc
It would be upto me to check on this before listing the cache.

As for multicaches and intermediate waypoints - if no cache placement is involved I don't mind finding intermediates close to one another, ie finding info from a sign/plaque etc
If the intermediate is a micro - then my previous paragraph applies.
I realise you could still place a cache "on top" of another - if this happened then surely the person who more recently placed the cache could move it. (??????)

I like the idea of an Australian Site for geocaching - it allows us to develop the sport as Australians see fit, not Americans.
Could all existing caches be transferred across??

I believe the site developers should be paid for their efforts - subscription.

Another idea similar to premium caches would be ‘cache groups’. Have a feature that lets people set up a cache group and invite anyone they wish. They can then set a cache as only viewable to one or more of the cache groups they belong to. Most caches would still be for all but it gives you the possibility to do special caches. After all members of a cache group have found a cache it could be made ‘public’ or archived.

I don't feel comfortable with this idea - it could create clique groups and not allow the sport to be open to all.

Keep up the good work Ideology
K&M

[Team Piggy]

Whats Geo.com going to think of it all ? I wonder if they will suddenly decide to block Aust as we have gone our "own" way ?

Just a thought..

[caughtatwork]

Just a couple of thoughts.

Selectable waypoint ID's.
Are these going to be restricted to the number of characters useable by GPSr's. ie. I think my etrex only allows for 6 or 8 character names, so anything longer than that would be a problem. This could be why the secondary site restricts them to GCaaaa.

Allowing caches without approval.
Hmm. Just going to the extreme here for a moment. Let's imagine someone who is not exactly the type of person who should be part of the caching society decides to let loose a hundred new caches, none of which exist. They may look OK but until the effort is put in, you don't know if they exist. I appreciate that at the moment the same could occur, but I presume that after a while the approvers would start rejecting them. Without an approver, this would just go on and on until that ID was blocked and they set up another one.
With another simple thought, sometimes we have brain farts and locate a cache somwhere where it shouldn't be. I believe the approvers look at the final location for the cache and use the resting place as a determination as to whether to approve. This counts as a sanity check. If there could be something other than an approver that could sanity check the cache site I would be for this, but maybe having an approver is not such a bad thing.
Maybe something like approval in retrospect, so at least the cache gets out there and then gets checked soon after.

Virtual caches.
Without approvers, what sort of virtuals would end up being lodged? I know most people who play the game would do the right thing, but I'm sure there are some out there who would like to flaunt the guidelines. This could result in a plethora of virtuals without good reason, or the wrong reason. Extreme scenario again, would someone lodge the SHB as a virtual if they could?

Time sensitive caches.
I've never seen one so forgive me for my comments. If they were only available for a week (day) or so, what would the traffic be likely to be in that week. I have heard reports of 'queues' of people waiting to complete some new caches as they come up. Would we see a stampede of traffic to a short-term cache site? Don't know if that's a problem or not.

I suppose that at the moment, most of the people playing the game are sensible and responsible people. If the game takes off (which it is likely to do over time), then would we have to go back and start implementing some rules to stop the fools and idiots from disrupting the game?

Would we then have older players rueing the newbies and fondly remembering the good old days when idiots hadn't spoilt the game?

I think some things should under the control of the site owners and others not, so I suppose I'm ecouraging thought to the future when there could be thousands of players in Australia and not every one of them being cool to the guidelines.

Having said that, let me say this. I like the idea of what you are proposing. I'm all for an Australian version created for and set up for Australian conditions. Let's be realistic about what 'rules' we have and what 'guidelines' we should follow.

[GammaPiSigma]

Whats Geo.com going to think of it all ? I wonder if they will suddenly decide to block Aust as we have gone our "own" way ?

Just a thought..

I thought of this as well. What will Groundspeak think?

Are you looking to implement some sort of subscription system like gc.com uses now. This is a major move to make and will require a lot of resources, the cost of it could end up being a monster for you or are you going to try and do it for free?

As a "newbie" I am not that comfortable with the idea of self approving caches. There would have to be some guidelines and the checklist is a good approach to the problem. Instead of having dedicated approvers could we have volunteer beta testers and reviewers. They could help iron out the bugs.

Overall I think the idea has some merit. For some of the older cachers the game may be getting stale and a bit of a refresh could be just what the doctor ordered. For us younger (figuratively speaking) cachers any improvement to the caching experience is welcome in my opinion.

Just some thoughts.
Mike.

[riblit]

Whats Geo.com going to think of it all ? I wonder if they will suddenly decide to block Aust as we have gone our "own" way ?

Just a thought..

Very petty if they do - but then they are uncontactable at the moment..

[Rabbitto]

Whats Geo.com going to think of it all ? I wonder if they will suddenly decide to block Aust as we have gone our "own" way ?

Just a thought..

Very petty if they do - but then they are uncontactable at the moment..

<p>

We may have no choice. They've been gone for a fair while now. Maybe they're not coming back.

[dak's Emu Mob]

Whats Geo.com going to think of it all ? I wonder if they will suddenly decide to block Aust as we have gone our "own" way ?

Just a thought..

<p>
I'll go a step further and say I don't like the idea. I think it has the potential to split the sport. I try not to be negative or pessimistic, but I can foresee MEGA-problems with self-approval.
<p>
Even though there might be some shortcomings that people are not happy about (movable caches, difficulty in having virtuals approved), I think the advantages of the current system outweigh the shortcomings by a massive margin.
<p>
I've logged a fair few locationless caches, and I can't help thinking that they have the potential to tend to stupidity, for example, taking a picture of a fire engine--and you can log that one as many times as you like! If the new system allows self approval of virtual caches, what will be the stance on locationless ones? By the way, you can read my opinion on locationless caches here. The mind boggles at the locationless caches that could be self-approved!
<p>
In fact, there are many, many things to account for if we want to prevent the sport from degenerating into farce or anarchy. The current "rules" didn't just appear overnight; I suspect they were developed over time, based on experience, and input from a wide cross section of people. And they were developed for a reason.
<p>
I'm sorry to be a wet blanket, but there are too many potential problems for me to like this proposal.
<p>

If the game takes off (which it is likely to do over time), then would we have to go back and start implementing some rules to stop the fools and idiots from disrupting the game?

<p>
This sums up my apprehensions.
<p>
I'll say it to save anyone else the trouble: Of course, if I don't like the system, I don't have to participate.
<p>
Cheers,
<p>
dak

[embi]

I'm watching this with great interest, but will decline from making comments due to my "role" with gc.com.

This doesnt mean I am for or against the propasal.

[Richary]

Apart from the fact gc.com seems to be down when I want to list one now, I have mixed thoughts about this.

I don't want to see anything split the hobby, so get the USA people to recognise that their anti terrorism laws don't necessarily apply here and let local approvers use their discretion. I think negotiation is a better option.

I have never met any of the approvers but they aren't going to approve something that involves people looking like a threat to some target. Common sense. If we have to go through all this political BS to post or find a cache then forget it, I will find something else to do on weekends.

[swampgecko]

Apart from the fact gc.com seems to be down when I want to list one now, I have mixed thoughts about this.

I don't want to see anything split the hobby, so get the USA people to recognise that their anti terrorism laws don't necessarily apply here and let local approvers use their discretion. I think negotiation is a better option.

I have never met any of the approvers but they aren't going to approve something that involves people looking like a threat to some target. Common sense. If we have to go through all this political BS to post or find a cache then forget it, I will find something else to do on weekends.

I'm with you on this..........

[Mix]

I donÂ’t think this would split the sport there are already other listing sites beside GC this would just give people more choice, I would use it and still use GC. GC would not block Australians, not now that it has taken money from so many of us for premium memberships. Choice is good!

[ideology]

thanks for all your comments

approvals

our aim is to foster lots of innovation by getting rid of the secondary site's listing rules. but as caughtatwork and dak's Emu Mob say, the rules keep the quality up.

The mind boggles at the locationless caches that could be self-approved!

we hate locationless caches too... we did something like 9 or 10 in half a day just to prove the point. in fact, we weren't even thinking of implementing locationless caches in the sytem. but the point caughtatwork and dak are making is broader. perhaps we should get a copy of the rules and step through them one-by-one as a group to work out the implications of each rule. then we could work out whether or not each rule should be kept as an approver rule, kept as a self-approved rule similar to mix's checklist suggestion, or dropped altogether. (we'd have done it now but the secondary site seems to be down at the moment.)

cache saturation

Cache saturation in an area is one side effect that could come from this. Would you be able to list the nearest caches and their distances when a new cache location is entered?

good idea, yes we can do that

cache groups

Have a feature that lets people set up a cache group and invite anyone they wish. They can then set a cache as only viewable to one or more of the cache groups they belong to.

like derringer, we're a little worried that this could create clique groups.

splitting the hobby

Whats Geo.com going to think of it all ?

probably not much. at last count australian caches were only a few percent of the total caches worldwide. also, in the past they've said in their forums that if people don't like the secondary site's rules, they are welcome to start their own site. we're just taking them up on their offer!

I have mixed thoughts about this... I don't want to see anything split the hobby

we don't want to split the hobby either. if you can convince them to allow listing moveable caches, that would be great!


waypoint naming convention

we are thinking that the owner of the cache could define their own waypoint name for the cache. it would have to be unique in the system (to riblit's visible primary key point) and only a certain number of valid characters long (to caw's point). the system is already set up to handle generic waypoint names. there is a test cache in the system whose waypoint is TEST. you can find it by searching on the word "test"

transferring caches

Could all existing caches be transferred across??

most existing caches are already on this system, it's just that the owners can't edit them. we could allow owners to edit them now but then there'd be two versions of the cache floating around on the net. it's probably easiest to leave caches where they are and when you want to hide a new moveable cache without a logbook, list it on this site.

subscriptions

This is a major move to make and will require a lot of resources, the cost of it could end up being a monster for you or are you going to try and do it for free?

we don't have any plans to charge for this site. we're developing the site for fun, so don't expect to get paid for that. the server and bandwidth do cost us money but we we are happy to pay for that unless it goes absolutely crazy. if that's the case, people can just start putting caches up on the secondary site again!

other features

Some sort of mass logging facility for those who find 20 caches a weekend. Maybe an xml file upload with log details.

sounds good. is there a recognised xml format for this type of thing? eg can GSAK produce something?

thanks for your comments. if someone has a copy of the rules, perhaps they could post them here and we could debate which ones are wothy of keeping as an approver rule, self-approved or dropped altogether?