What's the go with Earthcaches?

djcache · Post by **djcache** » 25 March 07 11:28 pm

rhinogeo wrote: When are you heading to Cape Conran DJ

Just as soon as the shed's built and the Kamper has somewhere to live, then it will be here instead of Mount Beauty where it's garaged at the moment

Anyone for an event...

DJ

rhinogeo · Post by **rhinogeo** » 25 March 07 11:29 pm

dandent wrote: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 am left wondering WTF

Why would anyone potentially open a can of worms by seeking offical permission for a virtual cache at a location nearly everyone visiting the Whitsundays visits

The Spindoctors · Post by **The Spindoctors** » 25 March 07 11:33 pm

The answer to your question about the growth of Earthcaches in Eastern Victoria is pretty much answered in your posts (or almost). One of the Earthcache approvers is based in Buchan. Both he, and the founder of Earthcaches, are Australians, who formally worked for AGSO/Geoscience Australia. The other (geoaware) lives most of the time in Colorado (hence the USA connection) and sometime in Canberra. For the record, I keep in touch with these guys.

IMHO - I believe Earthcaches should be a category of Waymarking. The purpose of WM was to provide a new home for virtuals and locationless caches, and remove them from the gc.com website. I say I believe this, as it 'fits' into the rationale that Groundspeak set out a few years ago.

My understanding is that when that initially occurred, there was a big drop off in interest towards Earthcaching. Whether this, and other 'factors', justified it being re-instated into gc.com, I'm not privy to. However, I'm happy doing them (as I did this week in NZ) regardless of where they are.

As CraigRat suggests, ignore those caches that annoy you. Gawd know I have MANY categories that I ignore on the waymarking website.

I would also send a rational email to the 'powers' that be about your concerns.

Re: Dandent's comments. I think it's just a matter of time before the Nat Parks get more clued into what happening and start being proactive. More geocachers means more potential for things to go wrong.

dandent · Post by **dandent** » 25 March 07 11:45 pm

I wouldn't be surprised if some Qld cachers start getting emails re. : their hides ... then they may have to start justifying their caches. 
 
No worries for me ... will cut down on the me having to train staff in how to use GPSr's, with them being told to go out and find what is hidden at this position ... about time some of our rangers spent more time in the feild

... hang on

it might actually increase my workload ... going to have to find out who is looking into this and try and nip it in the bud real quick

don't want it cutting into my feild time 
Dan

Map Monkey · Post by **Map Monkey** » 26 March 07 8:28 am

djcache wrote:Ranger Dan has a nice ring to it....

Normally known as Spatial Ranger Dan

Since you won't be training staff Dan, can i have your underutilised 76CsX's now?

Unfortunately some of those emails (especially the Whitsunday caches) may be complicated to deal with due to the hider being from the US (and hasn't logged into GC for several months), and i am listed somewhere deep into the bowels of the system as the local contact (which probably would not show up now

)

Fortunately the cacher who has hidden the most caches in NP/SF areas around here is a nice guy and should be able to explain the situation

mm

djcache · Post by **djcache** » 26 March 07 12:29 pm

I think the general lack of interest in waymarking speaks for itself. As far as I can work out from much discussion around the time of virtuals going the way of the dodo, cachers did the odd virtual but didn't really like them all that much. They did them if it was close by or on their way to somewhere and it was a numbers thing.

Cachers prefer locations with caches. That's predominantly what the sport is about. I can't see that it's popularity would be what it is and what it is growing to if the sport had been founded on following your gps to a location and answering an obscure question in an email and waiting for permission to log a find.

My kids certainly wouldn't be interested, nor would many cachers I know if there were no "hidden" caches.

More than half the fun of owning caches is in the hide. Whether it be the manufacture of a good camo container, or finding just the right spot for a sistema box, it's a challenge and there's a thought process that goes with it which is stimulating.

The hardest part about placing a virtual is thinking of a question that someone can't google the answer to, to log the cache without a visit. Hence the lame easy way out, please send photo of you holding gps at GZ.

The second best bit is reading the logs and seeing whether you challenged a finder. Compliments are often given to the hider for really challenging or clever hides.

TFTC is about all you'll ever get for a virtual.

I agree wholeheartedly that Earthcaches should be in Waymarking land. If they can justify moving them back to GC then all virtuals should be allowed back - and that wouldn't be a good thing.

If they are unpopular there, then maybe that just says something about the idea that may be hard for the cachers who came up with the idea to swallow, but it also means they aren't going to be all that popular on GC.com either.

Have a look at the number of logs on real caches in areas where Earthcaches are located nearby and I'll bet there's a trend (where's our stats man CaW?) toward ignoring these.

I'm not on my pat malone here. I was visited by a cacher from central vic on the weekend and we did two real caches, no virtuals - oops sorry Earthcaches. With limited time the earthcaches weren't a priority.

I will be caching the locations of the Earthcaches once the shed's built and I have somewhere to fabricate good camo again. I'd already planned to. Now that apparently they don't impact on cache placement I'll cache them. Who knows, maybe that will bump their numbers up? But that would only prove that if you wish to educate cachers about geology, using a hidden cache will certainly raise the profile better than a virtual.

I can understand the leave no trace aspect. But if you take people somewhere, and they leave footprints, vehicle tracks, carparks, bitumen, concrete, info boards to answer the questions from etc. what is the harm in hiding the container provided the location is responsible?

You can't tell me that Buchan Caves isn't Earthcache worthy, but otherwise unspoiled by human intervention.

DJ

Post by **caughtatwork** » 26 March 07 12:36 pm

zactyl · Post by **zactyl** » 26 March 07 4:01 pm

Yeah, we love locationless, bring 'em back!

djcache · Post by **djcache** » 26 March 07 9:08 pm

Hmm. Now I feel even better about having found 220 caches or there abouts.

DJ

Papa Bear_Left · Post by **Papa Bear_Left** » 27 March 07 1:02 am

I have no problems with virtuals or locationlessessess (I know how to spell it, I just don't know how to stop spelling it!)

Just as long as there's no chance of getting them confused with geocaches by listing them in the same place.

dandent · Post by **dandent** » 29 March 07 9:53 pm

might interest some ... looks like they are out there looking for caches already!
Article in the latest Ranger Rambler - newspaper for QPWS Rangers
(will try and attach a pdf scan of the page)

http://gallery.geocaching.com.au/albums ... .sized.jpg
 
... damn painful ... if only they had an electronic copy on the internet I could have just place a link

Dooghan · Post by **Dooghan** » 29 March 07 10:51 pm

Should be an interesting read. Maybe you should write an article yourself. Make yourself the expert about geocaching and you might get a lot more time in the field finding them across the state. I couldn't think of a better way to spend my day

tronador · Post by **tronador** » 05 April 08 10:40 pm

djcache wrote:
Cachers prefer locations with caches. T
My kids certainly wouldn't be interested, nor would many cachers I know if there were no "hidden" caches.

DJ

Based on what information???

I don't necessarily need to find a box to enjoy geocaching. I cache to discover a new location or bushwalk that I would not have known about otherwise. A virtual or earthcache still takes me to those locations and I learn something new and interesting. Caching compliments the many activities I do in the outdoors.

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if a cache contains swaps or not. I'm not in it for that.
I'm also not into drive by caching or the numbers or stats. I love the challenging hard terrain caches.

So it's all horses for courses I guess. Geocaching provides a hobby for a variety of different people.
Who am I to say get rid of all the terrain 1 caches that you can drive within a 100m to. They serve a purpose to our "hobby"

I don't think it's right that any cacher makes a generalisation on how, who or what makes for a good experience or cache!!!

Richary · Post by **Richary** » 06 April 08 6:56 pm

dandent wrote: (will try and attach a pdf scan of the page)

http://gallery.geocaching.com.au/albums ... .sized.jpg

Weird, here it displayed as a mirror image and I don't read right to left. Have flipped it and reposted as

http://gallery.geocaching.com.au/Lost-F ... zed_mirror