New Cache Type

[+dunestar]

Hi Folks,

 

I would like to suggest a new cache type. Instead of 31 days of forced caching I think it might be more interesting to create a new type. Often when we want to go caching, you find low quality caches placed without any love to create power trails. For us it is more interesting to visit places with a powerful history. Therefore I would recommend a type similar to earthcaches, called history cache, which can be placed only at monuments or ruins or old castles. If it is a virtual or physical box, might be discussed... I know there have been location caches... may be it is a point to discuss...

 

Regards,

dunestar

[+The_Incredibles_]

A "history cache type" has been suggested before. I personally think it's a great idea.

[+Sadjo]

I agree. My kids (7 & 9) really enjoyed some virtual caches we found this summer in Charleston SC. There are some others, both earth and virtual caches, in our community. Anything to help keep my kids interested in history, science and social studies is a great benefit to caching.

[+Mudfrog]

Yes, i would like to see something like this too. I would like it to possibly incompass caches placed in interesting and beautiful areas as well but i know that would be tough since these attributes are so subjective. Still, i would bet that something like this could help weed out many of the powertrails, lpcs, guardrails, and other caches who's soul purpose is to up smiley count.

[+ADKer]

I LOVE the idea of this. There really are times where I wish we still had virtuals, especially at places like monuments and such! If anyone wants my help making this great idea a reality, just send me a message. I'm a history buff myself, and I'd love to get this cache type!!!

Edited August 29, 2013 by Rinerts

[+T.D.M.22]

Hi Folks,

 

I would like to suggest a new cache type. Instead of 31 days of forced caching I think it might be more interesting to create a new type. Often when we want to go caching, you find low quality caches placed without any love to create power trails. For us it is more interesting to visit places with a powerful history. Therefore I would recommend a type similar to earthcaches, called history cache, which can be placed only at monuments or ruins or old castles. If it is a virtual or physical box, might be discussed... I know there have been location caches... may be it is a point to discuss...

 

Regards,

dunestar

 

Forced geocaching? Someone has a gun to your head?

 

It's been suggested already. Is there any reason you can't place caches at these locations now?

[+sasqwatches]

someone is trying that on a website here

 

i for one think a history cache would be a great idea

Edited August 29, 2013 by sasqwatches

[4wheelin_fool]

We have virtuals returned in a rather narrow form of the earthcache. If they do something similar for history themed areas, I think it would be popular, as virtuals with a history theme, and published by a different set of rules and reviewers. A regular cache with a history theme would probably never be implemented, although a history attribute would be helpful. As it is, the mystery cache could be broken into at least 5 different icons.

[+ipodguy]

"31 days of forced caching"?

 

Nobody's holding a gun to your head, dude.

[Keystone]

We have virtuals returned in a rather narrow form of the earthcache. If they do something similar for history themed areas, I think it would be popular, as virtuals with a history theme, and published by a different set of rules and reviewers. A regular cache with a history theme would probably never be implemented, although a history attribute would be helpful. As it is, the mystery cache could be broken into at least 5 different icons.

This is a pretty good summary. I doubt you'd find much opposition to a "Historic Site" attribute.

 

For the bigger idea of a cache type, step one would be to find a Historical Society to act as a sponsor and full time arbiter/administator of the new cache type. The only reason earthcaches exist as a cache type is because of GSA's helpful involvement.

 

I am not a big geology fan and have no special knowledge in that area, so I do not review earthcaches and I don't want to review earthcaches.

 

I AM a history expert and would happily volunteer extra time to be a dedicated HistoryCache reviewer -- but ONLY if there were an organization like GSA involved in the project. The paid staff of that organization can deal with customized guidelines, complaints from users, etc.

 

Until you get past that first step, I don't forsee a new cache type anytime soon -- especially if it's "containerless."

[+tozainamboku]

I doubt you'd find much opposition to a "Historic Site" attribute.

Then why hasn't it been implemented. We've gotten several new atrributes like teamwork, private, residence, tourist friendly, and wireless beacons. If the idea of marking caches placed in historic areas is so useful, you'd think it would've have been at the top of the list

 

Of course one is issue is that it isn't clear when a cache owner should use this attribute. I keep giving the example of the LPC in a parking log that had a write up on the page of the historic structure that was moved to allow the developer to put in the strip mall. Would that be historic?

 

For the bigger idea of a cache type, step one would be to find a Historical Society to act as a sponsor and full time arbiter/administator of the new cache type. The only reason earthcaches exist as a cache type is because of GSA's helpful involvement.

I'm not sure what to make of Keystone saying this. I had the impression that EarthCaches were a special situation that occured when virtuals were still being published. It wasn't a big deal for Groundspeak to agree to list them because they were already listing other virtual caches. Sure this was at a time when reviewers were already complaining about enforcing a "wow" requirement, so the idea that the GSA would provide dedicated reviewers may have had some influence. But I would guess that an history society would have to bring a bit more to the table than dealing with developing guidelines and dealing with review.

 

For a long time I thought that any society that suggested something like this would be directed to Waymarking. They could start a category there pretty easily. There was even a time when Groundspeak looked like they were developing a Waymarking University section for educational waymarks. However is seems as if Groundspeak has abandoned the idea of using Waymarking as a platform for developing new games and ways to share interesting locations, and relinquished the site to location catalogging.

[+ADKer]

We have virtuals returned in a rather narrow form of the earthcache. If they do something similar for history themed areas, I think it would be popular, as virtuals with a history theme, and published by a different set of rules and reviewers. A regular cache with a history theme would probably never be implemented, although a history attribute would be helpful. As it is, the mystery cache could be broken into at least 5 different icons.

This is a pretty good summary. I doubt you'd find much opposition to a "Historic Site" attribute.

 

For the bigger idea of a cache type, step one would be to find a Historical Society to act as a sponsor and full time arbiter/administator of the new cache type. The only reason earthcaches exist as a cache type is because of GSA's helpful involvement.

 

I am not a big geology fan and have no special knowledge in that area, so I do not review earthcaches and I don't want to review earthcaches.

 

I AM a history expert and would happily volunteer extra time to be a dedicated HistoryCache reviewer -- but ONLY if there were an organization like GSA involved in the project. The paid staff of that organization can deal with customized guidelines, complaints from users, etc.

 

Until you get past that first step, I don't forsee a new cache type anytime soon -- especially if it's "containerless."

 

Yes that seems like a great way of doing things. If anyone wants my help in any part of making this happen, just send me a message!!! I absolutely love history (pretty obsessively ), and would love to see this work!!!

Edited August 29, 2013 by Rinerts

[+dunestar]

"31 days of forced caching"?

 

Nobody's holding a gun to your head, dude.

 

Of course it was ironic, everybody has the freedom to decide by his own... nevertheless it forces a lot of people to move to a cache every day by car, etc. is this friendly to our nature? Of course you have to get to the caches, that´s for clear, but in my region a lot of cachers joined the 31days, including myself, and went to each container by car. Myself used the caches located nearby and took my bike... but as you know... new caches in the homezone are rare... so someone created powertrails, etc. Of course this game is very popular and it is growing... there are a lot of advantages and disadvantages... it is just a hint to think about those actions... therefore to faszinate new cachers, new ideas are needed, which are friendly to nature and animals...

 

We have virtuals returned in a rather narrow form of the earthcache. If they do something similar for history themed areas, I think it would be popular, as virtuals with a history theme, and published by a different set of rules and reviewers. A regular cache with a history theme would probably never be implemented, although a history attribute would be helpful. As it is, the mystery cache could be broken into at least 5 different icons.

This is a pretty good summary. I doubt you'd find much opposition to a "Historic Site" attribute.

 

For the bigger idea of a cache type, step one would be to find a Historical Society to act as a sponsor and full time arbiter/administator of the new cache type. The only reason earthcaches exist as a cache type is because of GSA's helpful involvement.

 

I am not a big geology fan and have no special knowledge in that area, so I do not review earthcaches and I don't want to review earthcaches.

 

I AM a history expert and would happily volunteer extra time to be a dedicated HistoryCache reviewer -- but ONLY if there were an organization like GSA involved in the project. The paid staff of that organization can deal with customized guidelines, complaints from users, etc.

 

Until you get past that first step, I don't forsee a new cache type anytime soon -- especially if it's "containerless."

 

Yes that seems like a great way of doing things. If anyone wants my help in any part of making this happen, just send me a message!!! I absolutely love history (pretty obsessively ), and would love to see this work!!!

 

I agree, to create a new type might be difficult, but not impossible... in my opinion it could be with container, like a tradi or multi... only with a symbol of a map and some modified rules. Of course you need some experts in history and a database with the provided information for historic places. I think the benefit has a higher value than the costs. And I like historic places... that people remember important actions in our past... does not care about, if they happend 100 or 500 or 1000 years ago.

[+Don_J]

Hi Folks,

 

I would like to suggest a new cache type. Instead of 31 days of forced caching I think it might be more interesting to create a new type. Often when we want to go caching, you find low quality caches placed without any love to create power trails. For us it is more interesting to visit places with a powerful history. Therefore I would recommend a type similar to earthcaches, called history cache, which can be placed only at monuments or ruins or old castles. If it is a virtual or physical box, might be discussed... I know there have been location caches... may be it is a point to discuss...

 

Regards,

dunestar

 

Forced geocaching? Someone has a gun to your head?

 

 

The way people are complaining in our local groups about "having" to get a cache, you would think that was the case.

[+ADKer]

I agree, to create a new type might be difficult, but not impossible... in my opinion it could be with container, like a tradi or multi... only with a symbol of a map and some modified rules.

 

Actually, I think it sort of would have to be a virtual. There are some places where a container really wouldn't work. Plus, as with earthcaches, the point is having to make the finder learn something about the topic. An earthcache could be be "Please tell me how this rock wall formed, and what kind of rock this is." A historycache could ask something like "Who is this plaque dedicated two, what did he do, and how did he die." They would have to be amrchair proof by forcing you to look at a name or a date or something, but I think it would work just as well as an earthcache, if done right. Or we could get some sort of extra logging requirement? That might work too. All we need is someone to help get Groundspeak to agree!

 

(Again, just message me if you'd like any sort of help doing this, I really want this to happen!)

Edited August 30, 2013 by Rinerts

[+T.D.M.22]

Who's to say what counts as a historical site. Like Keystone said-there will have to be a dedicated group to review these caches.

 

 

Forced geocaching? Someone has a gun to your head?

 

 

The way people are complaining in our local groups about "having" to get a cache, you would think that was the case.

 

I did a power trail and log one cache per day.

 

Well actually I did a power trail intended to log a cache per day. I still have I think 60-70 caches to log.

[+Dogmeat*]

I have four caches out right now that would be defined as a history cache. I'd love for them to be noted as what they are, seeing as a lot of people tend to not read descriptions around here.

[+K13]

yea, some of the cache s I've seen published lately are nothing but coords - no write-up at all.

[+dunestar]

Has anyone an idea to force this cache type? I wrote to Groundspeak and they told me to place it here...

[+wimseyguy]

With apologies to Inigo Montoyo- Force; you keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

As already explained by Keystone, there needs to be an outside Historical Society or Organization that creates and judges the historic worthiness guideline aspect as the GSA does for EC's. Find them, and put them in contact with Groundspeak and you might have a chance at a new type. I agree that the attribute has a better chance of happening, and do wonder why it doesn't already exist. It would probably get used more than livestock alert.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

We have virtuals returned in a rather narrow form of the earthcache. If they do something similar for history themed areas, I think it would be popular, as virtuals with a history theme, and published by a different set of rules and reviewers. A regular cache with a history theme would probably never be implemented, although a history attribute would be helpful. As it is, the mystery cache could be broken into at least 5 different icons.

This is a pretty good summary. I doubt you'd find much opposition to a "Historic Site" attribute.

 

For the bigger idea of a cache type, step one would be to find a Historical Society to act as a sponsor and full time arbiter/administator of the new cache type. The only reason earthcaches exist as a cache type is because of GSA's helpful involvement.

 

I am not a big geology fan and have no special knowledge in that area, so I do not review earthcaches and I don't want to review earthcaches.

 

I AM a history expert and would happily volunteer extra time to be a dedicated HistoryCache reviewer -- but ONLY if there were an organization like GSA involved in the project. The paid staff of that organization can deal with customized guidelines, complaints from users, etc.

 

Until you get past that first step, I don't forsee a new cache type anytime soon -- especially if it's "containerless."

 

Yes that seems like a great way of doing things. If anyone wants my help in any part of making this happen, just send me a message!!! I absolutely love history (pretty obsessively ), and would love to see this work!!!

 

I agree, to create a new type might be difficult, but not impossible... in my opinion it could be with container, like a tradi or multi... only with a symbol of a map and some modified rules. Of course you need some experts in history and a database with the provided information for historic places. I think the benefit has a higher value than the costs. And I like historic places... that people remember important actions in our past... does not care about, if they happend 100 or 500 or 1000 years ago.

 

That would be an EXCELLENT cache type! Likely to be more popular than earthcaches.

 

I hated studying history in school, but then I moved to NC in '97 and read a book called "Touring the Western North Carolina Backroads"by Carolyn Sakowski and discovered plenty of local history that was very interesting and unknown to many. I discovered that history as related to a specific area can be facinating, and moreso when you are in the very spot.

Edited September 1, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+dunestar]

Hmmm... I do not think that it is a big issue to implement a new cache type... it can be supported by Groundspeak instead of a third party company... if they need reviewer... I would be a volunteer...

[+ADKer]

Hmmm... I do not think that it is a big issue to implement a new cache type... it can be supported by Groundspeak instead of a third party company... if they need reviewer... I would be a volunteer...

 

It would have to be a third party, as keystone said:

For the bigger idea of a cache type, step one would be to find a Historical Society to act as a sponsor and full time arbiter/administator of the new cache type. The only reason earthcaches exist as a cache type is because of GSA's helpful involvement.

 

I too am a big history guy (I go out of my way to read up on stuff, its kinda obsessive ), and would love to dedicate my time to volunteer to be a reviewer, if that means the new cache type would be implemented !

Edited September 2, 2013 by Rinerts

[+St.Matthew]

I love the idea, but Keystone is correct. Third party must be reviewers, with strict guidelines. Not every plaque is worthy of being a cache. We also don't want HistoryCaches (or whatever they would be called) outnumbering caches with physical containers.

Edited September 3, 2013 by St.Matthew

[+ADKer]

I love the idea, but Keystone is correct. Third party must be reviewers, with strict guidelines. Not every plaque is worthy of being a cache. We also don't want HistoryCaches (or whatever they would be called) outnumbering caches with physical containers.

Yes, I think our best bet is to use earthcaches as a sort of model in making the "historycache" cache type.

[+KazumiSun]

Hi Folks,

 

I would like to suggest a new cache type. Instead of 31 days of forced caching I think it might be more interesting to create a new type. Often when we want to go caching, you find low quality caches placed without any love to create power trails. For us it is more interesting to visit places with a powerful history. Therefore I would recommend a type similar to earthcaches, called history cache, which can be placed only at monuments or ruins or old castles. If it is a virtual or physical box, might be discussed... I know there have been location caches... may be it is a point to discuss...

 

Regards,

dunestar

great. idea. I would love it. as a side note. I do love August 31 days of caching...I find it fun

[+wimseyguy]

Hmmm... I do not think that it is a big issue to implement a new cache type... it can be supported by Groundspeak instead of a third party company... if they need reviewer... I would be a volunteer...

 

Hmmm... I do not think that it is a big issue to implement a new cache type... it can be supported by Groundspeak instead of a third party company... if they need reviewer... I would be a volunteer...

 

It would have to be a third party, as keystone said:

For the bigger idea of a cache type, step one would be to find a Historical Society to act as a sponsor and full time arbiter/administator of the new cache type. The only reason earthcaches exist as a cache type is because of GSA's helpful involvement.

 

I too am a big history guy (I go out of my way to read up on stuff, its kinda obsessive ), and would love to dedicate my time to volunteer to be a reviewer, if that means the new cache type would be implemented !

 

Be careful what you wish for. It used to be that volunteering to be a reviewer in here was a sure ticket to never getting asked; ever.

[+ADKer]

Hmmm... I do not think that it is a big issue to implement a new cache type... it can be supported by Groundspeak instead of a third party company... if they need reviewer... I would be a volunteer...

 

Hmmm... I do not think that it is a big issue to implement a new cache type... it can be supported by Groundspeak instead of a third party company... if they need reviewer... I would be a volunteer...

 

It would have to be a third party, as keystone said:

For the bigger idea of a cache type, step one would be to find a Historical Society to act as a sponsor and full time arbiter/administator of the new cache type. The only reason earthcaches exist as a cache type is because of GSA's helpful involvement.

 

I too am a big history guy (I go out of my way to read up on stuff, its kinda obsessive ), and would love to dedicate my time to volunteer to be a reviewer, if that means the new cache type would be implemented !

 

Be careful what you wish for. It used to be that volunteering to be a reviewer in here was a sure ticket to never getting asked; ever.

 

Yeah, don't worry I know that! Although I think this could be considered a special circumstance, as we need to let Groundspeak or whoever know that there are people interested in working with this new cache.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Rinerts

[+dunestar]

Be careful what you wish for. It used to be that volunteering to be a reviewer in here was a sure ticket to never getting asked; ever.

 

hehe... I am careful... for sure... it was just to force the idea of the cache type... if it has to be a third party, why not the same as for the EC´s??? They already have the experience...

[+niraD]

if it has to be a third party, why not the same as for the EC´s??? They already have the experience...

The Geological Society of America might not be the best historical society to sponsor HistoryCaches.

[+cheech gang]

if it has to be a third party, why not the same as for the EC´s??? They already have the experience...

The Geological Society of America might not be the best historical society to sponsor HistoryCaches.

 

Could be sponsored by The History Channel. No, wait, they have nothing to do with history. ...nevermind.

[+ADKer]

if it has to be a third party, why not the same as for the EC´s??? They already have the experience...

The Geological Society of America might not be the best historical society to sponsor HistoryCaches.

 

Could be sponsored by The History Channel. No, wait, they have nothing to do with history. ...nevermind.

 

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Edited September 5, 2013 by Rinerts