Earth caches being placed on top of pre existing caches

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
User avatar
djcache
750 or more caches found
750 or more caches found
Posts: 559
Joined: 29 December 03 11:37 pm
Location: Lakes Entrance
Contact:

Post by djcache » 12 September 08 12:35 am

Earthcaches are virtuals.

They don't generally get people to detour off their intended route. Visits comparisons against nearby real caches can easily back that up. (Many people exclude them from their gps uploads.)

I have at least two in my area that are obstructing placement of genuine caches as up until this I have resisted placing a cache on top of one. One of them really annoys me because it's a great location worthy of taking cachers to and the earthcache doesn't do that.

Personally I think they should go the way of the dodo.

Interestingly the ability to "maintain" a virtual (ie. verify signage or whatever was required to complete the virtual was still intact) was being used to reject virtuals toward the end of virtuals, but apparently based on Earthcaches around here you can put an Earthcache anywhere and not worry about cache maintenance.

Even more interestingly you can take up a good spot for a physical cache just because from that location you can see oil rigs sucking oil & gas out of rocks you can't see hundreds of metres under the ocean that you can see 45km off shore. :shock: :?

Now if that's not an out and out virtual, I'm not sure what is.

Can you SBA an Earthcache? Dunno. If you do what happens?

How much longer before I place a few extra caches that get people to actually visit the locations taken & unvisited at the virtuals - sorry - Earthcaches? Dunno. Not long though probably.

Whoever proposed them should have been told that they could have a waymarking category all of their own. They aren't caches.

DJ

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

Post by Team Rubik » 12 September 08 8:12 am

djcache wrote: They don't generally get people to detour off their intended route. Visits comparisons against nearby real caches can easily back that up.
I know at least two handsome young lads who are planning on visiting your part of the state for the main purpose of visiting those Earth caches! I think visits may be low because there is a logging requirement (you actually have to demonstrate some learning of the area), and for some this can be difficult. A couple of Earthcaches in Victoria have been particularly difficult for people to log correctly on their first attempt and this may deter them from further visits to Earthcaches.<br>
<br>
Finally, unless you have the notes with you for an Earthcache they're not worth visiting (other than the geological interest). Not everyone prints every cache note or has access to paperless caching and hence Earthcaches tend to get ignored like multicaches.<br>
<br>

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16141
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 12 September 08 12:08 pm

As I have an interest in geology I would be more tempted to an Earth Cache than a box under a bush or rocks.

I'm waiting for nicer weather and then I'm off the the Mt Buninyong Crater (where I have been for a cache) with the kids.

So Earth caches may not be for everyone, but if they are done as well as the other 3 I have completed, then I believe they should stay.

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 » 12 September 08 12:22 pm

I guess earthcaches are not everyone's cup of tea but there is still a maintenance requirement in replying to each loggers e-mail with the answers to the questions.

In the event of signs disappearing then the earthcache would have to be reassessed as would any cache that had been muggled and I wouldn't have a problem with anyone logging a maintenance request.

Personally we have placed 4 earthcaches and had really good feedback from everyone who has visited them. They seem to find that they are an enjoyable diversion from the other types.

I also wouldn't have a problem with people putting a regular cache next to one of our earthcaches as we might get a few more finds.

User avatar
The Spindoctors
Posts: 1767
Joined: 08 October 03 8:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by The Spindoctors » 12 September 08 5:05 pm

djcache wrote:I have at least two in my area that are obstructing placement of genuine caches as up until this I have resisted placing a cache on top of one.
The Ump will correct me if I'm wrong, but you can place a traditional near an Earthcache (the 161 metre rule doesn't apply).

User avatar
SamCarter
1400 or more caches found
1400 or more caches found
Posts: 650
Joined: 13 March 07 10:32 am
Location: Hobart

Post by SamCarter » 12 September 08 5:26 pm

In either case (conventional cache on top of an earthcache or vice versa) the cache description of one can be used to advertise the existence of the other. I have found it useful in general when owners have highlighted other caches in an area (especially if they have also suggested optimal approaches).

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 » 12 September 08 5:49 pm

well we just did an earth cache/traditional combo and i didnt explode. Nearly got blown away by the gale force winds,, but i dont i would have done anything diffrent as far as reading the signs if it was one or the other

Damo.
Posts: 2183
Joined: 04 April 04 5:01 pm
Location: Jannali

Post by Damo. » 12 September 08 11:29 pm

Someone listed an Earth Cache directly on top of the Virtual that took me 6 months of gentle persuasion to get groundspeak to approve. I must admit that pissed me off a bit.
I though it was lame that I had to jump through hoops to argue points on how the site met the "wow factor" requirements of the time for a virtual yet this earth cache with all it's "educational" aspect just needed you to name a nearby mountain and which way is the valley running and a picture of you with your gps. :evil:

User avatar
djcache
750 or more caches found
750 or more caches found
Posts: 559
Joined: 29 December 03 11:37 pm
Location: Lakes Entrance
Contact:

Post by djcache » 14 September 08 12:03 am

Yeah I know I could place another one within 161 metres. It's a different issue as to whether I could actually bring myself to do it.

As to Damo's post. The Earthcache must be okay Damo because it's not a Virtual (Bull-cough...)

Team Rubik, you are more than welcome to come to Gippsland. The Earthcaches are pretty lame by comparison with what Rhino may expect. Consider that you have been warned.

DJ

User avatar
Alpini
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 43
Joined: 14 August 07 11:25 pm
Location: SH: most beautiful harbour, NH: nice of the north

Post by Alpini » 19 September 08 12:13 pm

I do not understand this EC discussion.
I like the variety of caches that gives us more room for nice caches.
I personally think the deletion of Virtuals and Locationless ones was wrong. Also I do not see the need for a 160 m rule for ECs.
When GC now opens wherigos I feel that goes a bit into money making as the cartridges have a kind of a price tag option.
Saying that an EC with educational aspects is in my eyes the better way and might be the cache type I would present to NPWS as a first option although a wherigo might be good in NPWS territory as well.
If you do not like one of those you still can ignore them.
Keep caching with less rules and thus more creativity and keep or reintroduce the variety of caches we had.
Do not worry about 160 m rule for virtuals or ECs.

User avatar
Richary
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
Posts: 4135
Joined: 04 February 04 10:55 pm
Location: Waitara, Sydney

Post by Richary » 19 September 08 10:22 pm

My objection is that when looking at the maps and planning a day's caching then with 2 caches too close together then one can appear over the top of the other and you miss it. Then you go and find one, only to look at the map later after the found one disappears off it, to realise you missed another.

That can happen with regular/multis with a similar startpoint as well, or GC/GCA caches placed in the same spot (not that there is an easy solution for that issue).

User avatar
djcache
750 or more caches found
750 or more caches found
Posts: 559
Joined: 29 December 03 11:37 pm
Location: Lakes Entrance
Contact:

Post by djcache » 20 September 08 1:55 am

That can happen with regular/multis with a similar startpoint as well, or GC/GCA caches placed in the same spot (not that there is an easy solution for that issue).
Yeah there is. Don't worry about the GCA ones....

DJ

User avatar
CraigRat
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 6947
Joined: 23 August 04 3:17 pm
Twitter: CraigRat
Facebook: http://facebook.com/CraigRat
Location: Launceston, TAS
Contact:

Post by CraigRat » 20 September 08 10:17 am

richary wrote:That can happen with regular/multis with a similar startpoint as well, or GC/GCA caches placed in the same spot (not that there is an easy solution for that issue).
We've put proximity warnings on our cache listing service, so GCA on top of GC caches should be less of an issue than it used to be. We can't do anything about the other way though.

Proximity will always be an issue, but allowing an EC on top of a cache on the same site is no different to me than allowing 2 physical caches in the same spot...it shouldn't happen..(especially if it's to see the same geological feature)..
I'm kind of surprised that they haven't moved EC's to their own little corner like waymarking.
I've read a little on the history, and I still think that if the site spun out virtuals because it wasn't 'core geocaching' then EC's should be there too.... but I'm aware that other stuff is at play too like sponsorships, educational value and whatever. But at the end of the day it's a virtual... and should logically be with the other virtuals.

User avatar
djcache
750 or more caches found
750 or more caches found
Posts: 559
Joined: 29 December 03 11:37 pm
Location: Lakes Entrance
Contact:

Post by djcache » 20 September 08 10:23 pm

CraigRat wrote:But at the end of the day it's a virtual... and should logically be with the other virtuals.
You mean if it looks like, smells like, then it probably is?

Or if the cap fits then wear it...

I agree.

DJ

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 » 21 September 08 3:55 pm

I don't know why people are complaining about this topic. :?
Nobody is forcing you to do EarthCaches. Some people actually like doing them. If you don't like them then just ignore them. If you want to put a cache near one then go for it you are within the rules to do so.

Post Reply