What's the go with Earthcaches?

djcache · Post by **djcache** » 24 March 07 10:01 am

That's all well and good Craig. But why should an Earthcache placed by someone from interstate preclude the placement of a real cache in a location by a local.

That's a bit pointless.

Given the choice of real or virtual, all the cachers I know choose a traditional or multi.

If I come down there next week and pick 10 locations within a 20km radius of your place worthy of caches and find a stone of interest to make an earthcache out of would you be all that pleased about it?

DJ

Post by **caughtatwork** » 24 March 07 11:20 am

An Earthcache is supposed to be in a location where a container is NOT permitted.

You can't use that location for a cache as no container is allowed.

Post by **CraigRat** » 24 March 07 12:11 pm

djcache wrote:If I come down there next week and pick 10 locations within a 20km radius of your place worthy of caches and find a stone of interest to make an earthcache out of would you be all that pleased about it?

I'd just add em to my ignore lists...theres 5+ caches in Launceston already on it.... seriously.. I've made a point this year of not doing/ignoring caches that I don't agree with or ones I've got some kind of issue with and its made geocaching a more pleasurable experience for me.... If they don't pop up on your maps or GPS then you kind of forget about them...

I specifically added the Ignore List functionality to the GCA system to help ME from going bonkers over placements

Anyone who knows me knows I've been a lot more positive about caching since I chose to do the ignore/don't do thing...

djcache wrote:why should an Earthcache placed by someone from interstate preclude the placement of a real cache

...well there IS a solution to that...but lets not go down that path again.....

fehrgo · Post by **fehrgo** » 24 March 07 2:33 pm

caughtatwork wrote:An Earthcache is supposed to be in a location where a container is NOT permitted.

You can't use that location for a cache as no container is allowed.

That is my point, Earthcaches are a concession to the many places in the USA where they are not allowed to place caches due to the paranoia of the various park/forestry administrations. Had gc/US cachers worked with those administrations to allow caching in a similar form to that implemented in Canada, there would be no need for the "Earthcache" as such. As time progresses and certain cachers give us a bad name, things over there will likely progress ever more in that direction. At least we can be proactive and work to ensure that is never necessary here, to keep the virtual in whatever form from being necessary for us as well.

djcache · Post by **djcache** » 24 March 07 3:32 pm

So why are they being allowed in Victoria in places where caches would be approved without question or issue?

DJ

Post by **caughtatwork** » 24 March 07 4:39 pm

Dunno.

I would only ever place an earthcache where there was no possibility of leaving a cache.

Different strokes I suppose.

Maybe take your complaint to http://www.earthcache.org/

Map Monkey · Post by **Map Monkey** » 24 March 07 5:09 pm

caughtatwork wrote:An Earthcache is supposed to be in a location where a container is NOT permitted.

You can't use that location for a cache as no container is allowed.

Actually that is not necessarily the case with my posting...

Physical Caches are not banned from National Parks in Qld. There is no reason a physical cache could not be placed at the location i mentioned in the original post, even if it was still an EarthCache.

My understanding is that the virtual nature of these caches might be an easier way to guarantee that the finder has gained some information about the Geological significance of the area, even if the "hider" hasn't actually been to the location themselves. I would much prefer to see a physical container (instead of a photo of my GPS in hand etc) with these caches. Just because they are not allowed in some States/Countries should not stop people from placing physical caches in some areas......taking into account the environmental factors of course.

Map Monkey

rhinogeo · Post by **rhinogeo** » 24 March 07 8:20 pm

djcache wrote:So why are they being allowed in Victoria in places where caches would be approved without question or issue?

DJ

The approvers of Earthcaches are different people to the normal approvers - they are able to approve only Earthcaches on GC (ILTB)

Maybe they should also be run past the 'normal' approvers .... if they can be called 'normal'

BTW, I've placed the most popular Earthcache in VIC (so far) and it's in central Melbourne, better than an urban micro at that most interesting location IMHO

djcache · Post by **djcache** » 25 March 07 8:48 am

Map Monkey wrote: My understanding is that the virtual nature of these caches might be an easier way to guarantee that the finder has gained some information about the Geological significance of the area, even if the "hider" hasn't actually been to the location themselves.

Map Monkey

1. There should not be any cache there - earth or otherwise if the "hider" has not been to the site. If they can't get there to place it they definately have issues to maintain it.

2. How is what you are suggesting better at getting the finder to gain information than a multi requiring the use of information gained at the site to move on to another way point, or to a final location.

Some examples of what I'm talking about would be;
Sheppardtown History Walk which uses multi choice answers to get the finder to seek knowledge.

Or another, Oh Me, Oh My!

The other involves using information gained at the site to calculate information:
Long Way from Home I (Germany)

I realise many of the followers of this thread already know this, but for the benefit of newbies or those with limited experience finding or hiding caches I thought I'd explain it a little, it seems a lot of traditionals, and particularly micros are the favoured hides of newbies these days.

DJ

Map Monkey · Post by **Map Monkey** » 25 March 07 9:02 am

Thanks djcache,

Let me clarify that i'm not necessarily saying that the hider hasn't been to the location...just that this CAN be the situation. I'm not sure if they have or haven't been to the location.

In regards to point 2, I'm not suggesting that my explanation is the best method, rather this may be the thoughts of those hiding such caches. I would rather see your method to gain information on such a cache (though i must say that there is no geological information eg signage at this site to find) than email answers to cachers. If a hider of these caches goes on holidays for several weeks or longer, how do i log a find in a timely manner?

Well thought-out cache examples provided, thanks.

mm

riblit · Post by **riblit** » 25 March 07 1:47 pm

I have just read through this thread and also the Earthcache site.

caughtatwork wrote: An Earthcache is supposed to be in a location where a container is NOT permitted.

You can't use that location for a cache as no container is allowed.

There is nothing in the Earthcache guidelines at http://www.geosociety.org/earthcache/guidelines.htm to suggest that is true. The Earthcache guidelines prohibit the leaving of a physical container, not the managers/owners of the location. From their guidelines " In addition to waymarking and geocaching principles the Earthcache site also adhere to the principles of Leave No Trace "- That would be the reason for no container.

The Earthcache guidelines say the site must provide earth science lessons and be educational, surprisingly, maintenance isn't mentioned.

djcache wrote: So why are they being allowed in Victoria in places where caches would be approved without question or issue?

Because the Earthcache master has said the cache meets the criteria for an Earthcache. The criteria is education based - the caches follow a different set of guidelines.
I just had a look at the latest Earthcaches in Victoria. The published log shows the listing person as an Earthcache Master, not one of the gc.com reviewers.

Map Monkey wrote: My understanding is that the virtual nature of these caches might be an easier way to guarantee that the finder has gained some information about the Geological significance of the area, even if the "hider" hasn't actually been to the location themselves. I would much prefer to see a physical container (instead of a photo of my GPS in hand etc) with these caches. Just because they are not allowed in some States/Countries should not stop people from placing physical caches in some areas......taking into account the environmental factors of course. icon_razz.gif

The Earthcache FAQ answers this:
Why do EarthCaches have to be virtual caches?
The object of an EarthCache is to learn something about our planet. The reward is the lesson, not the trinkets in the container.

From looking at the Earthcache site I suspect they used to list their own caches and have now come to an arrangement with gc.com in that they host the listings. They do list gc.com as a sponsor and partner.

djcache · Post by **djcache** » 25 March 07 2:17 pm

So where do they fit with the 160m rule?

If there is nothing to confuse with another cache does that mean that an Earthcache and a Geocache may happily coexist?

And why when there was so much trouble gone to to eliminate virtuals, do we now have virtual caches again.

If leaving no trace is the goal then taking people there at all and leaving no trace are mutually exclusive. Find me a popular caching site that doesn't have some level of wear and tear (unless it's on concrete).

Ah. Answered one of my own questions... earthcaching and popular will probably be two words unlikely to appear often in the same sentence.

DJ

rhinogeo · Post by **rhinogeo** » 25 March 07 8:08 pm

djcache wrote:So where do they fit with the 160m rule?

If there is nothing to confuse with another cache does that mean that an Earthcache and a Geocache may happily coexist?

From the GC.com Guidelines:The (cache saturation) guideline does NOT apply to event caches, earthcaches, grandfathered virtual and webcam caches, stages of multicaches or puzzle caches entered as question to answer, or reference point, or to any bogus posted coordinates for a puzzle cache. Within a single multicache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between waypoints
So that means that a physical cache can be placed within 161 metres of an earthcache

When are you heading to Cape Conran DJ

dandent · Post by **dandent** » 25 March 07 11:10 pm

just stumbled across this thread ... and it is worth noting that the placement of the Whitsunday earthcache may have opened a bit of a Pandoras Box. 

The person who placed the cache also applied to QPWS for permission to do so ... being a gov department, by the time someone started to look at it, it was already published ... but now there have been a number of confused people ringing our office trying to assess what is going on. 

I got wind of it because one of the regional planners in our office is aware that I geocache ... yep I work for Parks. 

I explained that there is usually nothing physical associated with earthcaches, and this is the case with the cache in question. And the number of cachers visiting the spot in question, wouldn't even register compared to the hundreds of people that get dropped off there nearly every day. This part of Whitsunday Island is becoming really flogged due to the tourist activities already going on ... it is a bloody circus there some days. 

Yes Whitehaven is geologicaly significant - worthy of an earth cache - why not ... as to ownership, placer's locale etc... do we really care, being virtual what is there to maintain? - so this is the virtual cache debate, personal preferences and all that ... I am not going there. 

I now have problems with QPWS looking in to other caches placed in National Parks ... For the most part, most of the Nat Park caches I have visited (and there are alot out there that I haven't) are fine, but I have also stumbled across a few caches that I don't really agree with; caches placed needlessly in sensitive areas, caches placed in high visitation parks and needlessly off tracks (where the impacts of cache visits are leaving new trails where hides adjacent to paths are abundant), etc...
Is this caches for cache sake, or a lack of understanding or appreciation by the placer, of the sites significance and values? - could start a whole new debate here ... but how would you monitor and assess this ... do we cachers do this, as it would be difficult for the publishers to assess. 

Yes I am aware of the US Parks policy, but who determines a sites significance ... I now we do assess our estates for internal use, but also, rarely publish and promote these positions to the public ... don't ask me why ... I am of the opinion that we should. 

I know some investigation into geocaches is being undertaken by someone in permits in the Brisbane office - how far it goes - who knows! But I have already been questioned about a few others in the Whitsunday region that have been frowned upon ... with the only saving grace at this stage being that I have shown those asking questions that they are rarely visited (logs) so impact would be negligable. 

But being a cacher myself, I also have a number of caches out there in Parks, and why not, some of the nicest spots, and opportunities to get out there are in Parks. So how do we monitor and aprove caches in these areas. My opinion: by ensuring impacts from caching activities have no more detremental effects than would be expected from normal permitted use. My bosses and some associates are aware of my hobby, and for the most part, they have no issues with it, with some even thinking it is an appropriate use of a park, getting out there and having a look ... but others aren't so sure. Personally, I think it is an appropriate use in most areas, if the impacts are negligable. But my assessments are based on my perceptions and knowledge about the area, which in some cases may be greater than the general publics. What do we do? 

In the mean time, it just might be time for me to change my user name to something a little less obvious.

cheers 
Dan

djcache · Post by **djcache** » 25 March 07 11:26 pm

dandent wrote:In the mean time, it just might be time for me to change my user name to something a little less obvious. 
cheers 
Dan

Ranger Dan has a nice ring to it....

DJ

PS There is a thread along these lines you may or may not have seen regarding caching at Wilsons Prom that you may be interested in. See here.