Why list a cache on GCA rather than GC

ideology · Post by **ideology** » 04 March 07 7:09 am

To us, it's geocaching, not gpscaching. The GPS is just a tool to get us in the general location. Once there, we put down the GPS and use our eyes.

We found our first cache without a GPS in January 2001. The advances in mapping have reduced the need for a GPS in our opinion. It might be fun to go a do a few sans GPS and see how we go!

riblit · Post by **riblit** » 04 March 07 11:32 am

Facitman wrote: I have never found a virtual or webcam cache, *my* idea of caching is finding a box. But to each their own. I do think that GC would still be allowing these types if they hadn't come up with the idea of waymarking, I think it was the driver of the change (again my opinion only).

Quite the opposite - they wanted to get rid of anything without a box at the end.
Waymarking became somewhere to put them to placate the masses.

Zytheran · Post by **Zytheran** » 04 March 07 9:51 pm

Bear_Left wrote:
Zytheran wrote:
Sure, you can find some caches these days (especially (sub)urban ones) without a GPSr, but GPS is part of the structure of the whole game, surely?

Should I be allowed to go to a golf course and kick the ball around the holes because I can't afford the clubs?

What an inane appeal to tradition. I thought I was talking about Geocaching, not stuffy old golf.

Honestly, how does giving a verbal location really detract from the game as opposed from using a GPSr? If the final location is complex the GPSr is only going to get you close anyway. If this game is really about coordinates only then why not ban all hints and force people to only use the GPSr?

Yet again we reinforce the rules that make caching more exclusive and less inclusive. In all my caches that *don't* have final locations as a coordinate in WGS94, I am yet to have a single complaint about that format. If you dont want to do that type of puzzle then don't. Jeez, if you really need cordinates then send me the solution and I'll send the coords!
Why is it that every year that renewal approaches I feel less and less inclined to renew and more and more inclined to give the whole thing away.

riblit · Post by **riblit** » 05 March 07 10:31 am

Bear_Left wrote:... but GPS is part of the structure of the whole game, surely?

Only 'cause its a lot lighter than a pack containing a chronometer, sextant, compass and chain.

Zytheran · Post by **Zytheran** » 05 March 07 11:20 am

riblit wrote:
Bear_Left wrote:... but GPS is part of the structure of the whole game, surely?
Only 'cause its a lot lighter than a pack containing a chronometer, sextant, compass and chain.

Dang! That explains the DNF's. Ok, where do get these GPSr thingos from?

"A sextant's accuracy is expressed in "seconds of arc". Each minute of angular measurement represents a distance of one nautical mile, so sextants can generally read out to one-fifth or one-tenth of a minute."
(It would appear this is with God using it)
Providing it hasn't been dropped, providing your math is good, providing you are skilled.
In actual practice with a modern sextant we have:
"For rough rules of thumb, one might say that the Mark 15 and 25 should typically yield fixes with uncertainly of about or less than some 5 miles, whereas the Mark 3 would be more like about or less than some 10 miles."
The things you learn!!:shock:

I think I'll stick with a compass and chain and go from survey points..

Facitman · Post by **Facitman** » 05 March 07 7:33 pm

riblit wrote:
Facitman wrote: I have never found a virtual or webcam cache, *my* idea of caching is finding a box. But to each their own. I do think that GC would still be allowing these types if they hadn't come up with the idea of waymarking, I think it was the driver of the change (again my opinion only).
Quite the opposite - they wanted to get rid of anything without a box at the end.
Waymarking became somewhere to put them to placate the masses.

Ahh, I stand corrected, but find the amount of effort that must have been expended to create waymarking.com incredible if it's only purpose was to "placate the masses". Anyway I'm sure they hoped it would take off and provide another string to their bow

Can I ask, does anyone know why earthcaches have returned to geocaching.com? I couldn't see any clear announcement or thread on the other forums about it.

The Spindoctors · Post by **The Spindoctors** » 05 March 07 10:03 pm

an I ask, does anyone know why earthcaches have returned to geocaching.com?

Geoaware from Canberra/Colorado would be the person to ask. He came up with the concept. He's a friend of mine and used to work at AGSO/Geoscience Australia.

I have a feeling that it might be 'political' as the concept is backed by the GSA. Have a look at the right-hand column on their home page: http://www.earthcache.org/

Personally, I think they should be in Waymarking, but ...

Hounddog · Post by **Hounddog** » 06 March 07 11:29 am

Ahaaa

It's nice to see things haven't changed....the same old arguments prevail.

Post by **CraigRat** » 06 March 07 11:34 am

Hounddog wrote:Ahaaa

It's nice to see things haven't changed....the same old arguments prevail.

Seems to be a quarterly thing....

Only thing we can agree on is to disagree

I can live with that. If everyone agreed 100% of the time, it'd get a bit boring...

The Garner Family · Post by **The Garner Family** » 06 March 07 12:42 pm

CraigRat wrote:Only thing we can agree on is to disagree

I disagree

ozzie-jeeper · Post by **ozzie-jeeper** » 06 March 07 1:04 pm

The Garner Family wrote:
CraigRat wrote:Only thing we can agree on is to disagree
I disagree

i agree

Post by **caughtatwork** » 06 March 07 3:48 pm

CraigRat wrote:
Hounddog wrote:Ahaaa

It's nice to see things haven't changed....the same old arguments prevail.
Seems to be a quarterly thing....

Only thing we can agree on is to disagree
I can live with that. If everyone agreed 100% of the time, it'd get a bit boring...

I disaree. It's a newbie thing

belken · Post by **belken** » 06 March 07 6:30 pm

The Garner Family wrote:Yea, read the wiki, some good summaries For me, allowing these types of things to be listed as caches dilutes the meaning of a 'find' and a 'hide' so much that I don't do either on GCA. I do however support the forums & stats side of GCA.

When did logging of caches on GC suddenly become meaningful. Have things changed all of a sudden. The dilution of a "find" was well entrenched (and still is)on GC before GCA ever started listing caches. So to not find GCA caches for this reason is a bit strange.

I have no beef with either site. So I cannot get passionate enough about either site. We list on both sites because we can and because we want to. We don't care who decides to find our caches. We enjoy finding caches and if there were 10 sites listing we would look at them all.

Damo. · Post by **Damo.** » 06 March 07 7:22 pm

I've seen enough cache logs from people in the "I don't look for GCA caches because they don't count" camp which speak of what I would consider "unethical" practices that I just think anyone who feels they have some sort of "principal" to not log GCA caches is just kidding themselves.

Logging an interstate-multi with no shame when you haven't actually found the majority of the waypoints and are tagging along to the final with someone else who did, or logging a find on an archived cache which you couldn't find so therfore replaced is just fine. Keep on increasing those smilies.

Just don't you dare tell me that GCA cache don't count!