Earth caches being placed on top of pre existing caches

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
User avatar
Udderchaos
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 728
Joined: 30 January 05 11:16 pm
Location: mount gambier SA

Earth caches being placed on top of pre existing caches

Post by Udderchaos » 11 September 08 2:28 pm

Ive just noticed a few earth caches popping up around the place at the same location of existing long term traditionals. We have one less than 5 meters from a traditional

just opening it up for discussion as theres been a bit of talk around here about it.

Team Rubik
Posts: 310
Joined: 24 October 05 2:47 pm
Location: Shepparton

Post by Team Rubik » 11 September 08 3:28 pm

Fair point for discussion and thankyou for not publishing names and URLs. Before I get the finger pointed at me though I will happily own up to having published an earthcache on top of an existing cache in Mount Gambier this week. This was not done without considerable discussion with the Earthcache folk, although the one person not involved was the owner of the other cache because I couldn't get a hold of him!<br>
<br>
My justification for doing so was the other cache made no mention of the geology of the area, only the attraction of the gardens themselves. Secondly, while visitors to the site may well stumble upon the geological information that is published there I thought it was not as likely since most cachers visited at night (and hence may miss the signage). I made several attempts to contact the owner of the existing cache (which is actually located some distance from the source of the Earthcache info, despite the coordinates provided), and in the end resorted to asking an aquaintence of theirs if they would mind. I also published my Earthcache with a link and recommendation for visitors to find the other cache nearby as a point of courtesy.<br>
<br>
Finally, the Earthcache folk published this on the condition that if the owner of the other cache contacted me and was not happy I was to report it, which I will of course.<br>
<br>
To broaden the discussion further, Earthcaches are meant to be educational and have no physical container to find, hence the proximity rule does not apply as strictly as there is no chance of someone accidently finding one container instead of the other. They stipulate that contact be made with the owners of existing caches for permission beforehand, however in this case they seem to have accepted that I did all I could.<br>
<br>

User avatar
McAdies
1100 or more caches found
1100 or more caches found
Posts: 69
Joined: 18 February 07 2:09 pm
Location: Sebastopol

Post by McAdies » 11 September 08 3:31 pm

The deal with earthcaches is they don't have the distance restrictions like other cache types.

This is because they do not allow any type of container to be left behind. Therefore you could technically use the exact same co-ordinates as an existing traditional cache.

However before you set up an earthcache that is reasonably close to an existing cache (or on top of it) it is asked that you contact the owner of the cache and let them know your intentions.

User avatar
Richary
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
Posts: 4160
Joined: 04 February 04 10:55 pm
Location: Waitara, Sydney

Post by Richary » 11 September 08 6:00 pm

The main problem with the caches being too close together is that when you look at the map one often hides under the other and you don't know it is there when planning your day. I would be happier if the distance rule did apply.

User avatar
Udderchaos
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 728
Joined: 30 January 05 11:16 pm
Location: mount gambier SA

Post by Udderchaos » 11 September 08 6:51 pm

i would say the teams involved would not be particularly difficult to track down.

If it was on top of a cache i had personally put some work into i would be unhappy.

However its not, so I just raised it for discussion amongst the gca community.

User avatar
Udderchaos
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 728
Joined: 30 January 05 11:16 pm
Location: mount gambier SA

Post by Udderchaos » 11 September 08 6:54 pm

p.s not having a go about the quality of the earth caches, they are first class & thankyou for placing them

User avatar
Papa Bear_Left
800 or more hollow logs searched
800 or more hollow logs searched
Posts: 2573
Joined: 03 April 03 12:28 am
Location: Kalamunda, WA
Contact:

Post by Papa Bear_Left » 11 September 08 7:28 pm

It wouldn't be a problem if Earthcaches were a waymarking.com category the way they should be...

Just a pet peeve of mine.

rhinogeo
2700 or more caches found
2700 or more caches found
Posts: 1213
Joined: 31 October 03 11:45 am
Twitter: rhinogeo
Location: Benalla, VIC

Post by rhinogeo » 11 September 08 8:13 pm

Papa Bear_Left wrote:It wouldn't be a problem if Earthcaches were a waymarking.com category the way they should be...

Just a pet peeve of mine.
But then nobody would find them :P

User avatar
Udderchaos
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 728
Joined: 30 January 05 11:16 pm
Location: mount gambier SA

Post by Udderchaos » 11 September 08 9:06 pm

just to add to what i said above as i think its come across badly.

Thats a great explanation Team Rubik. You have done well with the write up, expecially referencing the original cache. I think you have all bases covered there.

Just out of interest the gardener responsible was Ken Norton who used to work for woods & forests dept. He retired some years ago and still maintains the gardens as a volunteer. Myself and the Rizzos have also done quite a bit of work out there as we both work for the company who previously owned the land. Myself and Blindhambles nearly snuck out today from work @ lunchtime and found the cache, but alas too busy and rizzo who had gone home from nightshift beat us too it.

User avatar
Big Matt and Shell
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
Posts: 1905
Joined: 11 February 07 9:53 pm
Twitter: BigMattandShell
Contact:

Post by Big Matt and Shell » 11 September 08 9:57 pm

Udderchaos wrote:If it was on top of a cache i had personally put some work into i would be unhappy.
<P>I don't understand this? If this brings more people to the area and they can learn something while they are at the site them I see no harm?<P>EDIT - after a bit more thought I would probably not place a cache on top of another persons cache but if I thought the area was worthwhile I would suggest it to the cache owner. - EDIT
Last edited by Big Matt and Shell on 04 November 08 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Udderchaos
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 728
Joined: 30 January 05 11:16 pm
Location: mount gambier SA

Post by Udderchaos » 11 September 08 10:25 pm

Im not pointing out particular caches (ie the rubik one) his is significatly away from the existing one and does reference it.

i would say the same people would be there for the earth cache would be there for the traditional cache.

We did have one appear, placed by a Euro cacher on holiday which was literally on top of an existing traditional, defiantly no more than 3-5m, which is right next to the interpretive signs. you could very nearly read the fine print on the sign whilst logging the cache. this earth cache is now disabled.

rhinogeo
2700 or more caches found
2700 or more caches found
Posts: 1213
Joined: 31 October 03 11:45 am
Twitter: rhinogeo
Location: Benalla, VIC

Post by rhinogeo » 11 September 08 10:36 pm

Udderchaos wrote:If it was on top of a cache i had personally put some work into i would be unhappy
Just out of interest ... would you feel the same way if you had an Earthcache and someone hid a conventional cache at or adjacent to it?

Since Earthcaches are in the same category on GC as a Question to answer would one be approved on top of an Earthcache?

Perhaps thUMP could enlighten us on the policy

NB. I am not aware of this happening anywhere ... but it does seem possible :?

User avatar
Udderchaos
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 728
Joined: 30 January 05 11:16 pm
Location: mount gambier SA

Post by Udderchaos » 11 September 08 10:47 pm

possibly, i dont know, this wasnt intended to be about how "I" feel about it.
just something to talk about and i dont expect everyone to agree.

very good question to the reviewer

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16294
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 11 September 08 11:05 pm

rhinogeo wrote:
Udderchaos wrote:If it was on top of a cache i had personally put some work into i would be unhappy
Just out of interest ... would you feel the same way if you had an Earthcache and someone hid a conventional cache at or adjacent to it?

Since Earthcaches are in the same category on GC as a Question to answer would one be approved on top of an Earthcache?

Perhaps thUMP could enlighten us on the policy

NB. I am not aware of this happening anywhere ... but it does seem possible :?
I'll look for a response to this with interest.

I have a traditional cache at the Organ Pipes National Park. http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/1park_dis ... m?park=167

It's such a great area that it would be very worthy of an Earth Cache, so I was going to do one down there, but I always had in the back of my mind this very question.

There's likely to be more than 161m from each other, so it's probably not a problem, but I'm interested in the answer.

I could probably hide another traditional down there, but the fun I've had with Earth Caches means I would like to try and get one published.

User avatar
Papa Bear_Left
800 or more hollow logs searched
800 or more hollow logs searched
Posts: 2573
Joined: 03 April 03 12:28 am
Location: Kalamunda, WA
Contact:

Post by Papa Bear_Left » 11 September 08 11:06 pm

rhinogeo wrote:
Udderchaos wrote:Since Earthcaches are in the same category on GC as a Question to answer would one be approved on top of an Earthcache?

Perhaps thUMP could enlighten us on the policy
I'd treat it the same way as a gc.com cache that had been placed very close to a GCA cache (that I happened to know about):
I'd point out the nearby cache and, if the owner still wanted to go ahead, publish it.
Probably wearing the peg!

Post Reply