Why list a cache on GCA rather than GC

team waldron · Post by **team waldron** » 03 March 07 12:22 am

Some caches are listed on GCA and others on GC. Whats the difference? I believe that some types of caches are no longer allowed on GC.

Mix · Post by **Mix** » 03 March 07 12:41 am

Some do and some do not but listing on GCA is a matter of personal choice. Some reasons some people do are:
 
Its local.
 
Its a 100% free site: they arent forcing people to pay US$30 per annum to be able to download a GPX file containing your cache
 
Its "open"
 
They dont have strict guidelines like Geocaching.com
 
They dont censor the forums like Geocaching.com
 
The free GPX files contain all the logs, not just the last four
 
You can see who is watching your cache
 
Because you dont have all your eggs in one basket.
 
Others will make a lot of noise against the site but if they do not want to use GCA thats their choice and no one is trying to force them to change, (well at least Im not) those of us who do list here are exercising our choice.
 
Hope that helps.

Bronze · Post by **Bronze** » 03 March 07 8:12 am

Nice do over Mix.

Minimix is starting to get a good likeness.

Post by **CraigRat** » 03 March 07 8:40 am

Another good summary can be found on our wiki: http://wiki.geocaching.com.au/wiki/GCA_vs_GC

The Garner Family · Post by **The Garner Family** » 03 March 07 10:11 am

Yea, read the wiki, some good summaries on there.

On GCA, I can <a href="http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga0337">get naked</a>, <a href="http://beta.geocaching.com.au/cache/ga0510">do a dance</a> while <a href="http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga0650">watching a TV show</a> - and log 3 'finds' for it. On geocaching.com you have to actually find caches to get 'finds' - or at least they don't allow things like this to be listed anymore.

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.

Post by **CraigRat** » 03 March 07 10:40 am

It'd be easy to start a flamewar up here again, but it's not productive, needless to say you don't have to do caches you don't like... but a substantial number of cachers enjoy the odd virtual, locationless and 'other' types..
We are happy to host them here.. caching shouldn't be a super-serious hobby.. fun has to be part of the equation somewhere.. (There are also some excellent traditional caches here as well.)

It's YOUR data, you need to look at the terms and conditions of all the listing sites and see what suits your own mindset.

Bronze · Post by **Bronze** » 03 March 07 11:32 am

Getting in early...

Bunya · Post by **Bunya** » 03 March 07 12:11 pm

Didn't you mean

Bronze · Post by **Bronze** » 03 March 07 12:12 pm

Nope.

Definitely

Papa Bear_Left · Post by **Papa Bear_Left** » 03 March 07 12:20 pm

I think it's a bit sad when a cache that I've refused to publish (as theUMP, of course, not as Papa Bear_Left) for what seem like good reasons, then shows up as a GCA cache. This shouldn't be the dumping ground for failed GC caches.

That's partly balanced by the caches that clearly fail a guideline that makes sense on a global site, but still have some merit and can be sensibly published on a local site where the audience is a little better known.

Claiming a smiley for seeing a painted truck? Not for me, and I just filter the local silly ones out of my GSAK database and don't bother myself with them. I've stopped caring so much about the numbers, so if someone wants to pad their tally with such nonsense, then their credibility is the only loss.

Ooh! Ooh! Bronze, have you seen this site?

http://www.teapotters.com/howitworks.php

wombles · Post by **wombles** » 03 March 07 12:26 pm

I've always wondered why there aren't more GCA caches?

The Spindoctors · Post by **The Spindoctors** » 03 March 07 1:53 pm

I agree, it certainly shouldn't be a dumping ground.

The Kokoda cache in Rhodes is a great cache on GCA. It couldn't get into the GC site as it was too close of another cache that was listed there.

Re: Locationless cache. You certainly need to sort the wheat from the chaff. There are some good ones, funny ones, and...well I won't say.

Overall, I think it's good to have an alternative.

Post by **caughtatwork** » 03 March 07 5:59 pm

On GCA, I can <a href="http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga0337">get naked</a>, <a href="http://beta.geocaching.com.au/cache/ga0510">do a dance</a> while <a href="http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga0650">watching a TV show</a> - and log 3 'finds' for it.

On geocaching.com I can <a href="http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... c394">Find some art</a>, <a href="http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... 968b">Some more art</a>, <a href="http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... 85b3">Even more art</a> all without actually finding a cache or leaving a log in the log book.

Both sites have plusses and minusses and really it would your choice as to which site you list your caches on.

I list most of my cache on GCA nowadays because I enjoy knowing that the details via a GPX file are available to everyone, regardless of whether they have paid money to get them.

I also like the various statistics and things that I can only get with a GCA listed cache.

You choose.

Papa Bear_Left · Post by **Papa Bear_Left** » 03 March 07 6:18 pm

caughtatwork wrote:On GCA, I can <a href="http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga0337">get naked</a>, <a href="http://beta.geocaching.com.au/cache/ga0510">do a dance</a> while <a href="http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga0650">watching a TV show</a> - and log 3 'finds' for it.

On geocaching.com I can <a href="http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... c394">Find some art</a>, <a href="http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... 968b">Some more art</a>, <a href="http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... 85b3">Even more art</a> all without actually finding a cache or leaving a log in the log book.

All of those gc.com caches were published in 2004, and couldn't have been published in the last two years, when virtual caches got harder, then impossible, to get published.
Got any recent silly examples? Like a picture of a painted truck? (I mean, it's not even a LOCATION, it's a vehicle! A photo of a bus stop is pretty lame, but at least it's got coords if you really want to go and look at it!)

I guess the simultaneous strength and weakness of the un-reviewed system is that new things become possible. Some of them might be great (still waiting to see something startling, though, at least in my local area) and some of them will be ...ummm... less great (see my local examples above!)

Post by **caughtatwork** » 03 March 07 7:19 pm

Try Wydham Lights 2006. GCHB4Y. December 2006. Only some two - three months old. Got another point?

The fact that they are there and still being found I suggest, indicates that people want to, and do find "non real" caches so GCA offers that opportunity for people to hide new caches of that variety.

I'm sure Australia is better for having competition in the telephony industry. Let's have some competition in the geocaching arena too.

Surely you aren't saying that GC is the be all and end all of all geocaching and that the people of the world must adhere to their stated rules and requirements?

I don't know why people think that having competition is a problem. If people don't want to find them, don't go and find them. There's no need to keep bashing this site just because people don't like what it does.

I'm not going to get into a flame war. You have a stated opinion, allow others theirs.