Time for another flame war

Wyoming Wombats · Post by **Wyoming Wombats** » 02 April 09 6:39 pm

(rant mode on)

I am soon to take a leisurely 4 day trip from Sydney to Melbourne via the Coast road. No wife, no kids to prevent caching on the way. What about getting a few locationless caches while I'm travelling? Let's go to the GCA Locationless site and have a look.
There are such things as "6 degrees of Separation" - a brilliant idea and one to be logged close to Melbourne; RSL Monuments and Explorers both worthy of at least a look. There are others that require logging playgrounds, toilets and camping areas. I can live with these because they can be useful as both location and recommendation tools. Then there are others that involve photographing (with GPS in shot) what appear to be people's hobbies or interests. I won't name them as I believe that although I disagree with them, GCA has made them legal and therefore at least to be tolerated.
I remember the time around the .COM and GCA schizm there was much debate as to whether Locationless caches were good, bad or indifferent. .COM rid their world of locationless as people were having to log as many Fire Engines as you can or find mobile phone towers disguised as trees. The list went on. However GCA stuck to their guns and allowed locationless caches. No problem as far as I'm concerned.
It is at this time I will put forward a hypothetical question. There is a locationless cache in NSW to log NSW State Survey Marks (good idea). However it follows - Please feel free to log as many as you like. I am a surveyor. I have access to the location and co-ordinates of these marks. I also know where there are great concentrations of these marks. With a little planning it would be quite possible to "find" 200 or more of these marks in a day. I could claim the most finds in a day. Over a few weeks I could probably overtake Maccamob in finds.
Now the question - IS THIS CACHING???????? It is undoubtedly "legal", I can find as many as I like. Is it ethical? I won't buy into the numbers game. The Big question? IS THIS CACHING IN THE WAY IT WAS ENVISAGED AT THE GENESIS OF THE SPORT? Don't get me wrong - if people get their rocks off taking photos of "Signs containg the letter "E" - fine but don't expect me to find them. But to allow UNLIMITED finds on these type of caches is (IMHO) turning locationless caching (and, in turn caching in general) into a joke. Yes, I could ignore them but as I asked before, is this really caching?
The Two Dogs had a brilliant idea in the .COM days called GSL - That's the Trig. You had to find Trig stations around Australia. You were only allowed to log a maximum of 5. I logged 2 and I think there weren't many who logged more than that. Perhaps the "Powers that Be" can restrict how many Locationless Caches can be logged. Included in that would also be listed to give others who may want to log the cache a chance. Again, I couldn't care less if GCA allowed a cache in which " A photo must be taken of 4 men and 6 women dressed in clown suits all holding GPS units". But don't expect me to log it. If I am proved wrong in my rant or assumtion, I will accept the umpire's decision - albeit kicking and screaming.

(/Rant mode off)

Post by **CraigRat** » 02 April 09 6:56 pm

Don't like a cache, don't do it

Cache by your own standards and abilities.

Let others cache how they choose to.

It's not actually important.

I help run this site, but I have a pretty big dislike for locationless and virtuals (I have logged a few, but only a handful)... however, others love them, and in remote locations some cachers have NO CHOICE but to log these types of caches. I have no issues with these caches. Limits are something the cache owner has to think about, and a lot of them DO have limits... how well policed they are, that I can't tell you.

If you go and walk or whatever to 200 trigs and log 200 smileys, then good for you, if that's what you want to do.

I would rather walk to 200 trig points than do 200 crappy 1/1's in littered spots!

There's no need for a flame war. It's all about what YOU choose to do that is important, and more importantly, having the freedom to choose what you want.

Post by **CraigRat** » 02 April 09 7:14 pm

As a postscript, theres a reason Locationlesseses are off to one side on the site.... and that is so it's easy to ignore.

I haven't looked at the caches listed there since we did that..... and I sleep well at night.

Richary · Post by **Richary** » 02 April 09 7:59 pm

While I don't find a locationless nearly as satisfying as a normal cache, I believe it is up to the hider to determine the rules. Many of them have rules that say there must be at least one other log in between your logs, that would stop this type of behaviour, or you can only log it x times.

I think I logged 3 or 4 of the trigs in the old days, I have logged GA0157 Eye Spy a few as well - but only once per subject.

I guess to take this to it's logical extreme I will create a new cache called "White cars". Take a photo of a white car to log this cache. There is no limits to number of logs per day or new locations required.

Then I will sit beside the Pacific Highway at Chatswood for a day with the camera timestamping all the photos. Apart from stops to periodically transfer the SD card data to the PC I should be able to double maccamob's or Liz and Bruce's total in a day.

Mind you the logs might be a bit boring. "White Holden Astra 09:12:05" "White Mercedes 09:12:06" "White delivery van 09:12:10". And we had probably better wait until the new server hardware is in place

Damo. · Post by **Damo.** » 02 April 09 8:49 pm

I haven't logged a locationless for quite a while because I find them a bit dull. I remember someone asking about survey marks and wouldn't it be good to have a category to log them. Ho hum, how very boring I thought. But I had the same though when someone suggested putting a traditional cache at every rest stop between Sydney and Canberra.

IS THIS CACHING IN THE WAY IT WAS ENVISAGED AT THE GENESIS OF THE SPORT?

The first cache was buried in a hole and had food in it. (And even worse, a Brendan Frazer movie!) Locationless caches came along not too long after.

Now the question - IS THIS CACHING???????? It is undoubtedly "legal", I can find as many as I like. Is it ethical? I won't buy into the numbers game.

The ones I have logged have been for a bit of fun. I wouldn't complain if they didn't count towards my find total. Ethical? I've seen logs from numbers cachers who see no shame in replacing a missing cache and then claiming a find at the same time.

For the most part I leave them for those who enjoy doing them. Can't say I've ever searched for any to do or gone out of my way to do them.

Statistically by find numbers they are by far the most popular type of cache so someone likes them.

Big Matt and Shell · Post by **Big Matt and Shell** » 02 April 09 10:34 pm

Damo. wrote:Ho hum, how very boring I thought. But I had the same though when someone suggested putting a traditional cache at every rest stop between Sydney and Canberra.

Have you done one???

ntstrom · Post by **ntstrom** » 02 April 09 11:33 pm

When your closest (real) cache to find is 300 odd kilometres away the locationless caches listed on GCA at least let you keep on caching.

I certainly have found quite a few locationless caches, but only as a last resort because there are no GC caches about to find. If there were I certainly wouldnt worry about the locationless caches. See my numerous pleads and begs for new caches at: http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=8761

However, as has been said previously, if you dont like them, and you dont play for the numbers, dont do them.

Wyoming Wombats · Post by **Wyoming Wombats** » 03 April 09 7:01 am

I think it's time to clarify a few things. 
1. I didn't say I was anti locationless. What I meant to say was that I am selective in what I will log. 
2. Richary hit the nail on the head with the "White Car" cache scenario. The way that the locationless caches are run, GCA would (by their charter of freedom for all) have to publish the cache and someone could log 5000 in a very short time. Highly improbable scenario but the loophole is available. 
3. Restricting the number of finds actually assists the people that do not have access to many caches. The "numbers game" people (but we don't have any of those do we) are restricted to only find a few of any locationless cache, leaving a multitude of "finds" available to those in cache poor areas. Eye Spy is a great example of how a cache can be logged in a multiple way but EVERYBODY can get a log if they wish. 
4. I agree with Craigrat that there are times when 100 locationless are better than 100 (1/1) magnetic key holders hurled onto a place of no interest to anyone whatsoever except to log a smiley.
Perhaps I should have worded the introduction better. This topic was supposed to get a general idea on people's thoughts about multiple (unlimited) finds on locationless caches. I WILL continue to play the game my way and ignore caches I don't feel I like. Players like Maccamob have been playing the game for ages and in the process spent lots of time effort and money caching (Indirectly or not). What does gall me is the prospect - small though it may be - that someone does have the ability to rack up huge numbers with little effort.

Post by **CraigRat** » 03 April 09 7:06 am

Wyoming Wombats wrote:What does gall me is the prospect - small though it may be - that someone does have the ability to rack up huge numbers with little effort.

Why does it matter?

Find count is NOT *Beep* size

You are not the sum total of the caches you have found.

This is not a hobby where more finds means more benefits

Find count is IRRELEVANT.

Seriously.

I don't respect one cacher over another based on how many caches they have found. It's how they play the game.

TheWonderStuff · Post by **TheWonderStuff** » 03 April 09 8:52 am

CraigRat wrote: Find count is NOT *Beep* size

gibbo003 · Post by **gibbo003** » 03 April 09 9:05 am

At least most locationless caches require the finder to supply a photo to show they were there, unlike most regular caches. If regular cache required a photo of you and the cache the clown from NZ that logged every cache in Darwin in Dec last year would only have 10 finds instead of being one of the NT highest finders on GCA stats.

TheWonderStuff · Post by **TheWonderStuff** » 03 April 09 9:08 am

gibbo003 wrote:At least most locationless caches require the finder to supply a photo to show they were there, unlike most regular caches. If regular cache required a photo of you and the cache the clown from NZ that logged every cache in Darwin in Dec last year would only have 10 finds instead of being one of the NT highest finders on GCA stats.

I think he has finally given up - and, yes he was(is) a clown

GeoScrubers · Post by **GeoScrubers** » 03 April 09 9:48 am

richary wrote:......Then I will sit beside the Pacific Highway at Chatswood for a day with the camera timestamping all the photos. .........

I think the government beat you to this

, and they send you a photo to prove it

squalid · Post by **squalid** » 03 April 09 9:49 am

Locationless are OK...Not my thing, but I have done the odd one. I did a couple of survey marks on Mt Oberon, and the most interesting part was learning about what they are, and what they're used for. I managed to get a few documents off the web about each one, and that enriched the experience.

See this log where there are scanned details from the vic land website.

Damo. · Post by **Damo.** » 03 April 09 12:35 pm

big_matt wrote:
Damo. wrote:Ho hum, how very boring I thought. But I had the same though when someone suggested putting a traditional cache at every rest stop between Sydney and Canberra.
Have you done one???

No. I haven't put a cache at a rest stop between Sydney and Canberra.

There's need to turn my comment into a personal attack on you. There was no intent to do that. Just my personal opinion that drive-bys are boring. Each to his/her own.