Bring back Locationless caches?

[+gpsblake]

Us old timers remember the Locationless caches. You know, the one's where you can go to any flag pole and log it as a cache under the flag pole category? We know those have been done away and for good reason considering the high number of them that were showing up.

 

My approach would be different and I think it would encourage some people to interact more with the site.

 

I would bring them back... One a month, only for the month, put out by Groundspeak HQ. They could use their imagination on making a monthly high quality Locationless cache of the month. However, at the end of the month, they would be permanently archived with no additional logging available afterwards. Meaning if one got published on Oct 1st, you would have until Oct 31st to log your find. Then the next month, a new one is published, again only one a month. At the end of the 12 month period, if someone has found all 12, one in each month, they get a souvenir. Only one would be available to log at any time.

 

An example one month might be "Visit the high point of your state/province", next month, "Visit your state/provincial capital", and so forth... Make them special, make them unique.

 

Just think about it....

[+cerberus1]

I like the idea of Groundspeak themselves putting 'em out, which hopefully would rule out the fast food joints that Waymarking has degraded to now.

- But I'd like to see their choices for a weekend, not an entire month.

I'd think the sales/marketing folks have probably already looked into it.

[Andronicus]

I wouldn't be against the idea, but may still decide to boycot them (like I did with Challanges).

[Mr.Yuck]

I wouldn't be against the idea, but may still decide to boycot them (like I did with Challanges).

 

Geocaching Challenges do not exist. Geocaching Challenges never existed.

 

Just kidding. I did document mine for all eternity on Twitter though. Yuck December 4th, 2012 tweet

[+lamoracke]

I would vote for locationless caches to be brought back for a limited time, like a retro weekend or something fun like that. Perhaps open up a few old ones that already exist, with CO permission, and then archive and lock them afterwards. Or new ones, whatever. Personally I would choose the souvenir penny machine one if an old one was brought back. Souvenirs with them, that would be okay, but I would just love to log one, or a few, partly for the icon yes. I like their idea too, wish I was around back in 2005 so I could have done them. Have cached for over 6 years now and wish I could get that icon somehow.

Edited October 22, 2014 by lamoracke

[+The A-Team]

I like the idea of Groundspeak themselves putting 'em out, which hopefully would rule out the fast food joints that Waymarking has degraded to now.

This misconception really needs to be nipped in the bud.

 

While there are Waymarking categories for fast food restaurants or other commercial chains, these were mostly created way back at the start of Waymarking (2005) or soon after. In more recent years, nearly every commercial category that has been proposed has been rejected by other Waymarkers in Peer Review. I just checked, and the last commercial chain category that was created was for IKEA stores in June 2010. Within the last year, I recall seeing categories for Home Depot, Little Caesar's, and Zaxby's that were rejected in Peer Review, and others like K-Mart and Costco were rejected in forum discussions before they ever got to Peer Review. Waymarkers have become much more picky about which categories get approved.

 

If it's been a while since you have looked at what categories are available in Waymarking, I urge you to take a few minutes and go take a look. With over 1000 categories, I'm sure you'll find many that you find interesting. Picking out the McDonald's category* and using that to generalize that all Waymarking categories are uninteresting is off the mark and unfair.

 

List of newest categories

Category Department Listing (click each for categories in that department)

 

*I know you didn't (quite), but most do

[+MountainWoods]

Absolutely. I have found that Waymarking has gotten me out and about into more interesting areas than geocaching ever did. Ignoring those "unfortunate" commercial categories, there are many excellent categories that bring you to fascinating areas. You'd be doing yourself a disservice by throwing out the whole Waymarking game because of some old categories that you can just as well ignore; and, in fact, add them to your Ignore List (the whole category)!

 

Remember that the whole idea of containerless caches was to allow you to go find things that did not (or even did) allow cache containers, but were worth seeing.

 

Oh, and by the way, if you want virtuals, they are still available, just not on the Groundspeak site. So what if the "found numbers" from other sites are not incorporated on the Groundspeak site? It's not about the numbers anyway.

 

But you'll find that Waymarking on the Groundspeak site can be very interesting. With so many categories, you can pick and choose which things you like to look for. Are you urban? Are you rural? Are you both? Are you interested in natural oddities? Are you interested in fantastic man-made things? Are you interested in history? It's all there in Waymarking.

Edited October 22, 2014 by MountainWoods

[+nikcap]

Sounds like fun.

 

But, like the mythical and legendary Geocaching Challenges, I don't think this is a "mistake" that Geocaching.com wants to make again.

[+Ambrosia]

Probably getting too far off the subject, but I had to comment about Waymarking degrading into fast food places (like the last couple posts to this thread are discussing).

 

I'm going to relate the history as best as I remember it, sorry if I get anything wrong.

 

In the very beginning of Waymarking (2005), when the site was just getting up and running, I believe the first waymark created was for a McDonald's near where Groundspeak was located at the time. Bootron, one of the lackeys working on the Waymarking site, liked McDonald's, and thought it would be fun to use the nearby one as a test waymark.

 

Notice the key words here? "Liked", "Fun". I wish that people wouldn't get so wrapped up in negativity. Someone, somewhere, working on a new concept, thought they'd test it out with their idea of a fun waymark to a category that they liked.

 

Not sure why that turned into the precedent for all the ways that Waymarking is bad, but I guess that's just the way it goes.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Ambrosia

[+tozainamboku]

* I don't know why they were called locationless, since the whole point of virtuals was that the location had so much to offer, but that a cache container was not allowed. So I call them containerless.

Locationless caches are different from virtual caches. Think of them more as Waymarking categories. Before there was Waymarking there was the idea of a locationless cache where the the listing said "Find an example of X and post the coordinates for it". Since this was almost exactly the idea behind a Waymarking category, anyone who owned a locationless was given the opportunity to create an identical Waymarking category, and a short time later all locationless cache were removed from Geocaching.com. Virtual cache were not moved to Waymarking as they would first have to be put into a category.

[+geodarts]

I really liked locationless caches back in the day. They expanded the game into areas where there were no caches and many demanded a certain level of thought or creativity. The Underground Railroad locationless got me to discover a plaque for the "Western Terminus" in San Francisco - as far as I know the only qualifying site in the state (although my research stopped after I logged it). Since a site could only be logged once, they sometimes required extensive research for those of us who came later. And since the categories had been frozen into place by the time I started, I was dealing with a limited universe that rewarded fast action. Although some of the locationless were pretty generic, I drove further to log a few of them than I would have driven for almost anything else in this game, other than a virtual.

 

I still think of them when I see particular things, especially some of the categories that I was not able to log. Who doesn't get nostalgic at the sight of a yellow jeep?

 

At the time, someone suggested that Groundspeak retain a few categories, which in some way is similar to the present suggestion, in that they could be rotated and limited. I wondered whether that might have been a way to better integrate Waymarking into this game. But at this point I don't see any compelling need to bring them back. Although I only have logged one waymark (when a locationless was archived by the owner before I could submit my qualifying photo), it seems appropriate to keep that aspect there.

 

With the growth of the game, they would be hard to administer if the old rules that were generally followed were kept. Any number of people might want to log the same object unless things were so generic that the challenge of doing them was no longer there. I was sad to see them go and if Groundspeak chose to bring them back, I would not be opposed, but there are other things I would bring back first.

Edited October 22, 2014 by geodarts

[Mr.Yuck]

I would vote for locationless caches to be brought back for a limited time, like a retro weekend or something fun like that. Perhaps open up a few old ones that already exist, with CO permission, and then archive and lock them afterwards. Or new ones, whatever. Personally I would choose the souvenir penny machine one if an old one was brought back. Souvenirs with them, that would be okay, but I would just love to log one, or a few, partly for the icon yes. I like their idea too, wish I was around back in 2005 so I could have done them. Have cached for over 6 years now and wish I could get that icon somehow.

 

It has been documented that when the official smartphone apps were new, there was a bug that allowed people to log them. I guess you missed that too. Most people were probably smart enough to back date the logs, but someone did point out a few to me with 2008 or 2009 log dates. I wouldn't link to them even if I could find them again though.

 

I actually like the idea given forth by the OP. Sign me up for it!

[+cerberus1]

I like the idea of Groundspeak themselves putting 'em out, which hopefully would rule out the fast food joints that Waymarking has degraded to now.

This misconception really needs to be nipped in the bud.

 

While there are Waymarking categories for fast food restaurants or other commercial chains, these were mostly created way back at the start of Waymarking (2005) or soon after. In more recent years, nearly every commercial category that has been proposed has been rejected by other Waymarkers in Peer Review. I just checked, and the last commercial chain category that was created was for IKEA stores in June 2010. Within the last year, I recall seeing categories for Home Depot, Little Caesar's, and Zaxby's that were rejected in Peer Review, and others like K-Mart and Costco were rejected in forum discussions before they ever got to Peer Review. Waymarkers have become much more picky about which categories get approved.

 

If it's been a while since you have looked at what categories are available in Waymarking, I urge you to take a few minutes and go take a look. With over 1000 categories, I'm sure you'll find many that you find interesting. Picking out the McDonald's category* and using that to generalize that all Waymarking categories are uninteresting is off the mark and unfair.

 

List of newest categories

Category Department Listing (click each for categories in that department)

 

*I know you didn't (quite), but most do

No, I didn't (quite).

I understand that those still interested in Waymarking are passionate about the site.

I looked at the site just last week (after a few years) in response to a thread about making that site mobile and wanted to see what's changed.

- The first two catagories were Fish and chips restaurants and boat rentals, so lost interest all over again.

You don't think them commercial?

[+MountainWoods]

* I don't know why they were called locationless, since the whole point of virtuals was that the location had so much to offer, but that a cache container was not allowed. So I call them containerless.

Locationless caches are different from virtual caches. Think of them more as Waymarking categories. Before there was Waymarking there was the idea of a locationless cache where the the listing said "Find an example of X and post the coordinates for it". Since this was almost exactly the idea behind a Waymarking category, anyone who owned a locationless was given the opportunity to create an identical Waymarking category, and a short time later all locationless cache were removed from Geocaching.com. Virtual cache were not moved to Waymarking as they would first have to be put into a category.

Thanks for the info. I never knew that. I've updated my reply, above to remove the digression into terminology. Though I have to admit that locationless sounds interesting to me too.

 

It's too bad (for them) that folks throw out Waymarking with the wash, though. I know it's not the same as virtuals, because I have a few virtual finds myself. But the category concept really makes for a versatile game.

 

(And, like I say, if folks want virtuals, there is a different web site for that!)

[+MountainWoods]

...

No, I didn't (quite).

I understand that those still interested in Waymarking are passionate about the site.

I looked at the site just last week (after a few years) in response to a thread about making that site mobile and wanted to see what's changed.

- The first two catagories were Fish and chips restaurants and boat rentals, so lost interest all over again.

You don't think them commercial?

 

What do you mean "the first two categories"? Where were you looking? I've been in Waymarking for nearly 2 years and I'd have to deliberately look to find Fish and Chips. You may want to start with the master category list.

 

Now boat rentals appeals to many folks, though not as much to me. But the whole point is that you can pick and choose.

 

You mean that you cannot find any category in the master list that appeals to you? Did you look?

[+Manville Possum]

Waymarking will support locationless caches.

[+geodarts]

(And, like I say, if folks want virtuals, there is a different web site for that!)

 

I have not found it yet, but we need not take the discussion there. In any event, the location-based games I play are enough to keep me busy without adding something different.

 

But I was just thinking further that the time that was the most fun with locationless was the last week before they were archived. Their rarity and their impending demise made even mundane things fun as we took a trip that allowed me to log a giant chessboard, ancient aqueduct, a capital of something sign, and several other categories. From a selfish standpoint, I would like to see that type of cache remain archived so that the effort has greater meaning. If they were brought back I would call them something else, like a Souvenir Scavenger or Geocaching find it anywhere Challenge.

 

This is especially true if the rules were changed so that two cachers could log the same location or object. There were some categories that were hard to get once they were taken - although I live in an area where the high point of two separate counties are along the same dividing line (I claimed the other one) once they were gone, they were gone. And if you did it any other way, it would not be a true locationless.

 

They worked better, then, when there were relatively few of us. If they were brought back, the temporal nature of the OP's suggestion would be fun, but if the category was narrow I could imagine dozens of people lined up at midnight to get a single locationless object. And if it were too expansive, we would all end up kissing a frog.

Edited October 22, 2014 by geodarts

[+tozainamboku]

You don't think them commercial?

Sure the commercial area within the Waymarking site has categories that are commercial in nature. Waymarking isn't bound by the guidelines of Geocaching. TPTB decided to allow quite a bit more flexibility in what they allowed to be listed as a waymark or a Waymarking category. Since the point of the commercial categories is for people interested in these establishments to list their locations or to visit them, the idea of keeping commercialism out of Waymarking makes less sense than it does for geocaching. It's easy to avoid the categories you're not interested in.

 

If you want to object to Waymarking categories that would not past muster as geocaches, why not complain about "buried" waymarks or ones with an agenda? Resting Places of Medal Of Honor recipients seems like one that ought to get complaints. In fact, the Department of Veteran's Affairs sent a letter to Groundspeak asking them to take down this category - so you could argue that it lacked permission as well. In order to satisfy the VA, the rules for creating waymarks in this category as well as visiting the waymarks had to be changed to ensure proper decorum is followed when visiting/photographing these sites.

 

But to get back on topic, the idea of Groundspeak owning/selecting the locationless caches has more to do with how difficult is it to find reasonable categories. As mentioned above the idea it to find categories that are generic enough that people have a reasonable chance to find one, without it being so easy as to be trivial. I like the idea of them being for a limited time as well, as that makes them into a contest of "can you find an example of X before the clock runs out". And then there will be a new X to look for.

[+Harry Dolphin]

There were some great (if limited) Locationless Caches. I do miss those.

Visqueney Doughboy statues. Mason and Dixon markers. Flat Iron Buildings. Fire Towers. Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings. Or "A Pair of Quintuplets". My find for that one was at: N 40 55.555 W 74 33.333.

Of course, there was a lot of trash: An American Flag, for instance. And most were not properly maintained by the owners. But some were fantastic ideas! Many were very limited. There are only between 124 and 300 Visqueney Doughboy statues!

 

 

Visqueney Doughboy Statue, Roselle Park, NJ

[+cerberus1]

You don't think them commercial?

If you want to object to Waymarking categories that would not past muster as geocaches, why not complain about "buried" waymarks or ones with an agenda? Resting Places of Medal Of Honor recipients seems like one that ought to get complaints. In fact, the Department of Veteran's Affairs sent a letter to Groundspeak asking them to take down this category - so you could argue that it lacked permission as well. In order to satisfy the VA, the rules for creating waymarks in this category as well as visiting the waymarks had to be changed to ensure proper decorum is followed when visiting/photographing these sites.

You took the last sentence of a post that was merely a reply to another and got an idea that I object to/am complaining about Waymarking categories?

I never once mentioned a comparison to a geocache.

Where on Earth did you get that from?

[+NeverSummer]

I remember a locationless that I was trying to get when I started. It was for marking Blue Star Highways. Just when I found a marker that hadn't yet been used, someone posted a "find" the same day that I was going out to get it. Shortly thereafter the Locationless caches all went away. That was as close as I ever got to logging one...

 

I'm not too worried about it, but I'm also not an icon, badge, or intentional geocaching souvenir collector.

[+lamoracke]

I would vote for locationless caches to be brought back for a limited time, like a retro weekend or something fun like that. Perhaps open up a few old ones that already exist, with CO permission, and then archive and lock them afterwards. Or new ones, whatever. Personally I would choose the souvenir penny machine one if an old one was brought back. Souvenirs with them, that would be okay, but I would just love to log one, or a few, partly for the icon yes. I like their idea too, wish I was around back in 2005 so I could have done them. Have cached for over 6 years now and wish I could get that icon somehow.

 

It has been documented that when the official smartphone apps were new, there was a bug that allowed people to log them. I guess you missed that too. Most people were probably smart enough to back date the logs, but someone did point out a few to me with 2008 or 2009 log dates. I wouldn't link to them even if I could find them again though.

 

I actually like the idea given forth by the OP. Sign me up for it!

 

Somehow I think a few folks from Ontario (the folks I noticed) and folks here and there who took advantage of the glitch was hardly the opportunity I was looking for. It was gone before I knew about it.

[+Manville Possum]

There were some great (if limited) Locationless Caches. I do miss those.

Visqueney Doughboy statues. Mason and Dixon markers. Flat Iron Buildings. Fire Towers. Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings. Or "A Pair of Quintuplets". My find for that one was at: N 40 55.555 W 74 33.333.

Of course, there was a lot of trash: An American Flag, for instance. And most were not properly maintained by the owners. But some were fantastic ideas! Many were very limited. There are only between 124 and 300 Visqueney Doughboy statues!

 

 

Visqueney Doughboy Statue, Roselle Park, NJ

Those have their own category.

[+gpsblake]

What could happen is Groundspeak would implement this, offer several choices each month and allow the registered members to vote on which one they want. Voting would last several days, much like a Waymarking category is now.

 

Even makes it more interactive and actually gives users some control over that category.

 

Could start a thread or category on the forums asking for suggestions, Groundspeak picks out some of the best ideas, then puts it to a vote.

 

I don't see where it would take any extra coding or resources really to implement this. A nice new fun category, something that game has been lacking for years now.

 

Could make it a monthly or even weekly thing. One active locationless at a time.

 

Whatcha say Groundspeak???

Edited October 23, 2014 by gpsblake

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I like the idea but I would have some reservations. Groundspeak doesn't exactly shy away from commercial ventures in geocaching when it benefits them (nor should they), so putting the entire locationless caching in their egg basket might turn out wonderfully or it might turn into finding a McDonalds/Sears/yellow car/etc.

[+niraD]

- But I'd like to see their choices for a weekend, not an entire month.

I think Geocaching Challenges (both the normal virtual-style ones, and the "worldwide" locationless-style one) had potential, but there were some missteps in their introduction. Those missteps turned a lot of people off of them initially. But I was just starting to look into them again when Groundspeak announced that they would be going away.

 

Still, I think "for a weekend" is too short a timeframe for any interesting locationless-style Challenges/caches. That might work for simple ones that you could complete during a short break from your normal routine, that could be completed without much planning. It wouldn't work for anything more interesting, for anything that might require preparation to complete. For those, a month or so would be a much better timeframe.

[+terratin]

I kind of like the idea. Or add some randomness by (this would be a smartphone game): come up with an algorithm that sends you to a rather random location based on your home location. Once you're within 20m of that location you are allowed to log. With a smartphone coordinate check you might be able to prevent couch loggers to just log for the icon. (yes, sounds a bit like geohashing, I admit )

[+terratin]

- But I'd like to see their choices for a weekend, not an entire month.

I think Geocaching Challenges (both the normal virtual-style ones, and the "worldwide" locationless-style one) had potential, but there were some missteps in their introduction. Those missteps turned a lot of people off of them initially. But I was just starting to look into them again when Groundspeak announced that they would be going away.

 

Still, I think "for a weekend" is too short a timeframe for any interesting locationless-style Challenges/caches. That might work for simple ones that you could complete during a short break from your normal routine, that could be completed without much planning. It wouldn't work for anything more interesting, for anything that might require preparation to complete. For those, a month or so would be a much better timeframe.

 

Plus a 'weekend' is something different in different countries. Geocaching is a global game, not a Western game.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Hi gspblake,

What you're suggesting seems to be that Groundspeak bring back their locationless Geocaching Challenges (like Kiss a Frog, there were others but that's the only one I remember), only with a smiley and a yielding a Locationless cache icon. Strikes me as unlikely.

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/default.aspx

 

The kicker about Locationless was the highly competitive nature of the logging. Once you logged that Blue Star Highway marker, I could not log it. At least not if the cache owner was managing their listing properly. There were some that didn't work that way, but not many.

 

Making one of these available to all cachers now would require full time owner engagement for the time it was up. And there would a LOT of logs deleted, assuming the cache owner handled the logging property.... Unless the category was hugely, widely worldwide available, like tree, or bush... something that everyone, everywhere could find a unique one of to log.

 

It would not be the same experience as most of the Locationless at all.

Here's the whole list

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=cae65357-db2c-468b-a62b-6b8dc0779a04

 

Your two example suggestions, hi-point, capital, are both Waymarking categories.

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=fad2534d-aea1-4d1f-a7a6-3a1e45948599

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=900cea62-6374-4b09-8cdc-2abac237f96e

Edited October 23, 2014 by Isonzo Karst

[team tisri]

Us old timers remember the Locationless caches. You know, the one's where you can go to any flag pole and log it as a cache under the flag pole category? We know those have been done away and for good reason considering the high number of them that were showing up.

 

My approach would be different and I think it would encourage some people to interact more with the site.

 

I would bring them back... One a month, only for the month, put out by Groundspeak HQ. They could use their imagination on making a monthly high quality Locationless cache of the month. However, at the end of the month, they would be permanently archived with no additional logging available afterwards. Meaning if one got published on Oct 1st, you would have until Oct 31st to log your find. Then the next month, a new one is published, again only one a month. At the end of the 12 month period, if someone has found all 12, one in each month, they get a souvenir. Only one would be available to log at any time.

 

An example one month might be "Visit the high point of your state/province", next month, "Visit your state/provincial capital", and so forth... Make them special, make them unique.

 

Just think about it....

 

It's an interesting idea, but don't forget Groundspeak's initial example of their challenges was "kiss a frog" so I wouldn't hold out much hope of anything too creative coming from them.

 

Based on what Groundspeak introduced as examples of challenges I rapidly concluded they were a total waste of time. It was only after they had been abandoned that I saw a few people with ideas that were actually quite clever and could have been fun to do.

[+Manville Possum]

I remember a locationless that I was trying to get when I started. It was for marking Blue Star Highways. Just when I found a marker that hadn't yet been used, someone posted a "find" the same day that I was going out to get it. Shortly thereafter the Locationless caches all went away. That was as close as I ever got to logging one...

 

I'm not too worried about it, but I'm also not an icon, badge, or intentional geocaching souvenir collector.

Yeah, those markers have their own Waymarking category and icon too. I'm not seeing anything presented in this thread that is not already listed as a Waymarking category.

 

Forget bringing back locationless caches and make use of the Waymarking site.

[+baloo&bd]

Pretty sure if it wasn't for these occasional thread, most people wouldn't know Waymarking still has a site. It has kinda gone the way of myspace, still there but not being used much.

[Mr.Yuck]

Pretty sure if it wasn't for these occasional thread, most people wouldn't know Waymarking still has a site. It has kinda gone the way of myspace, still there but not being used much.

 

A comparison to MySpace would imply that it was once wildly popular.

 

I'm no hata, I noticed just a few weeks ago actually, that I have logged Waymarks every single year since it was launched in 2005, and I own a whopping 2, although I didn't create them until 2012 I think it was. But it never even came close to catching on, and quickly established itself as a "creators game", with people creating tens of thousands of them, with almost no one ever visiting them. Most of it's initial cult following (while still not suggesting it caught on) are long gone, as can be seen by all the absentee leaders. The masses never accepted it as a replacement for locationless, and now that Baloo mentions it, it is kinda cute to see several people still trying to tout it as one in late 2014.

 

Call me crazy, I'm on board with the idea suggested in the OP.

[+NeverSummer]

Locationless were found quite a bit, IIRC. Waymarks? Hmm...I looked at many of these easy-to-find, they-are-everywhere items, and a vast, vast majority of them from my home 220 miles to Anchorage are unlogged.

 

Myspace isn't such a bad comparison. But the locationless idea didn't have the same Waymark feel to them (yes, yes, I never got to log one...because the sites I'd find were all already logged!)

 

I don't know that locationless caches could work again, as it means a bit of work for a listing owner to maintain the logs for accuracy and lack of overlap. Meaning, again, if someone grabbed that Blue Star Highway sign down the road from me, nobody else could log a find for that item at/near those coordinates. I don't know if we'd see the same level of involvement if we handed it back to everyone to have the ability to create a new locationless cache. I don't think Groundspeak has the time or energy to monitor the logs either. Just looking at other threads and anecdotal trends on log auditing, cache maintenance, and on and on, I don't see this working well even if they came back. See Geocaching Challenges for another example of this good idea put into the hands of a willing audience and promptly broken.

 

So yeah, it would be great to have them back for the icon, but for what other use would they actually work? I don't see it being a "better mistake tomorrow" to bring them back in any form with the current climate of geocache listing and log maintenance.

[+lamoracke]

If they want a volunteer for a new locationless for a weekend or week or whatever, with the old icon, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I bet they could find 10 saps around the world who would gladly do it.

[+niraD]

It's an interesting idea, but don't forget Groundspeak's initial example of their challenges was "kiss a frog" so I wouldn't hold out much hope of anything too creative coming from them.

I suppose that depends upon what kind of frog you were kissing in the photo...

[+Gill & Tony]

One of the things I enjoy about caching is doing it with friends. It doesn't seem to make sense to me to have only one cacher to be able to log a site. That completely goes against the group going caching together theme.

 

I'm all in favour of temporary locationless caches but not with a single finder approach.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Gill & Tony

[Mr.Yuck]

One of the things I enjoy about caching is doing it with friends. It doesn't seem to make sense to me to have only one cacher to be able to log a site. That completely goes against the group going caching together theme.

 

I'm all in favour of temporary locationless caches but not with a single finder approach.

 

"Once a site is logged, it cannot be used again" restrictions were imposed by LC owners if they choose to. Some had it, some didn't. For example, I know you could run out and log as many waterfalls as your heart desired. Kinda cheesy I know, but you could. Should Groundspeak accept the OP's proposal, they'd probably have to rule out any with those restrictions.

 

By the way, the moratorium on new LC's was enacted way back in February, 2003 (before I started even!!) and only 382 had been created. As documented on this bookmark list. Keep in mind though, it was created by an early fan of Waymarking, so it attempts to steer you in that direction. Not unlike some of the old-timers in this thread. Except that MPH is not an old-timer.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

One of the things I enjoy about caching is doing it with friends. It doesn't seem to make sense to me to have only one cacher to be able to log a site. That completely goes against the group going caching together theme.

 

I'm all in favour of temporary locationless caches but not with a single finder approach.

 

"Once a site is logged, it cannot be used again" restrictions were imposed by LC owners if they choose to. Some had it, some didn't. For example, I know you could run out and log as many waterfalls as your heart desired. Kinda cheesy I know, but you could. Should Groundspeak accept the OP's proposal, they'd probably have to rule out any with those restrictions.

 

The waterfalls example is an interesting one and I had used it in discussions about Geocaching Challenges. I think that Challenge could have had a possibility for success if somehow GS could have promoted the idea it was about how many challenges one could complete, but about how one completed a challenge. I live in an area where there are over 100 waterfalls over 15 feet high withing 10 miles. There's one less than a 1/4 mile from my house that's pretty but it's only about 10 feet high and easily seen from one of the major roads through town. There is also one that is over 200 feet high with a straight drop into a gorge shaped like an ampitheatre. There are also quite a few "hidden" waterfalls 50-75 feet high (including another one about 1/4 mile from my house).

 

If a locationless caches feature were created I would like to see it implemented such that the focus was on the "best" instance of a specific type rather than the most instances of that type.

 

 

[+geodarts]

 

The waterfalls example is an interesting one and I had used it in discussions about Geocaching Challenges. I think that Challenge could have had a possibility for success if somehow GS could have promoted the idea it was about how many challenges one could complete, but about how one completed a challenge. I live in an area where there are over 100 waterfalls over 15 feet high withing 10 miles. There's one less than a 1/4 mile from my house that's pretty but it's only about 10 feet high and easily seen from one of the major roads through town. There is also one that is over 200 feet high with a straight drop into a gorge shaped like an ampitheatre. There are also quite a few "hidden" waterfalls 50-75 feet high (including another one about 1/4 mile from my house).

 

If a locationless caches feature were created I would like to see it implemented such that the focus was on the "best" instance of a specific type rather than the most instances of that type.

 

That was probably why many (most?) of the locationless were limited to a single log and did not permit using the same object for multiple "finds." With some of the generic ones - waterfalls or historical places - I tried to find places I had not been or were out of the ordinary. It took me a long time to find one historical site because it's exact location was somewhat of a secret, but I was interested in the site and it was more of an accomplishment than walking down the street to the first spot on the registery. Still, a focus on the "best" is not something that can be easily monitored, apart from each person's sense of pride.

 

I know someone who discovered that different fire engines could be logged for the category and set about trying to become the leading locationless cacher by stopping at hundreds of fire stations between north and south California. He succeeded, but it was not my style.

Edited October 24, 2014 by geodarts

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The waterfalls example is an interesting one and I had used it in discussions about Geocaching Challenges. I think that Challenge could have had a possibility for success if somehow GS could have promoted the idea it was about how many challenges one could complete, but about how one completed a challenge. I live in an area where there are over 100 waterfalls over 15 feet high withing 10 miles. There's one less than a 1/4 mile from my house that's pretty but it's only about 10 feet high and easily seen from one of the major roads through town. There is also one that is over 200 feet high with a straight drop into a gorge shaped like an ampitheatre. There are also quite a few "hidden" waterfalls 50-75 feet high (including another one about 1/4 mile from my house).

 

If a locationless caches feature were created I would like to see it implemented such that the focus was on the "best" instance of a specific type rather than the most instances of that type.

 

That was probably why many (most?) of the locationless were limited to a single log and did not permit using the same object for multiple "finds." With some of the generic ones - waterfalls or historical places - I tried to find places I had not been or were out of the ordinary. It took me a long time to find one historical site because it's exact location was somewhat of a secret, but I was interested in the site and it was more of an accomplishment than walking down the street to the first spot on the registery. Still, a focus on the "best" is not something that can be easily monitored, apart from each person's sense of pride.

 

Agreed, it's certainly nothing that would be enforceable. Despite the inclusion of briansnats quote:

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." , it's painfully obvious that the suggestion goes in one ear and out the other for many hiders. When Challenges still existed I posted a feature suggestion that would allow one to "like" a challenge completion log. Perhaps, awarding a souvenir when one has acquired a certain percentage of "likes" on their logs would foster the idea of "best" instead of "most".

 

I know someone who discovered that different fire engines could be logged for the category and set about trying to become the leading locationless cacher by stopping at hundreds of fire stations between north and south California. He succeeded, but it was not my style.

 

Rather than talk about waymark categories (which I admit I know little about), this sounds like what I've previously described as a contrived series. I've seen a bunch of different and interesting series of hides, usually but not always placed by the same person. For example, when I first started there was a cacher that had a bunch of caches hidden near "ex" bridges. Most of them were near old wooden bridges and often in very pretty areas with a nice creek (thus, the bridge). On the other hand, there are also a lot of contrived series caches. For example, there is one called an "Always" series, that are basically caches near (usually under a lamp post) a very common big box chain store that is always open. The only thing that they really have in common is that they include "Always" in the title, and are near one of these stores, and promote the idea that if there is a place with one of those stores that doesn't have a cache, then making a cache part of "the series" justifies putting a cache in the middle of a parking lot. For the most part, most of these contrived series look to me as just an excuse to put out more caches.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

The waterfalls example is an interesting one and I had used it in discussions about Geocaching Challenges. I think that Challenge could have had a possibility for success if somehow GS could have promoted the idea it was about how many challenges one could complete, but about how one completed a challenge. I live in an area where there are over 100 waterfalls over 15 feet high withing 10 miles. There's one less than a 1/4 mile from my house that's pretty but it's only about 10 feet high and easily seen from one of the major roads through town. There is also one that is over 200 feet high with a straight drop into a gorge shaped like an ampitheatre. There are also quite a few "hidden" waterfalls 50-75 feet high (including another one about 1/4 mile from my house).

 

If a locationless caches feature were created I would like to see it implemented such that the focus was on the "best" instance of a specific type rather than the most instances of that type.

 

That was probably why many (most?) of the locationless were limited to a single log and did not permit using the same object for multiple "finds." With some of the generic ones - waterfalls or historical places - I tried to find places I had not been or were out of the ordinary. It took me a long time to find one historical site because it's exact location was somewhat of a secret, but I was interested in the site and it was more of an accomplishment than walking down the street to the first spot on the registery. Still, a focus on the "best" is not something that can be easily monitored, apart from each person's sense of pride.

 

I know someone who discovered that different fire engines could be logged for the category and set about trying to become the leading locationless cacher by stopping at hundreds of fire stations between north and south California. He succeeded, but it was not my style.

 

I agree MOST had a one log per object restriction. Correction: The waterfall locationless has a big blue text note at the top of the page stating "2 logs per cacher", and dated "November 21st". However, the year of the note is not given. It does go on to say the same waterfall can be logged more than once, but only 2 waterfalls per person. Boy, talk about being able to make up ALR's.

 

Had to click on about 15 on the bookmark list I previously linked to find one, but here is Working Water Wheels. No restriction on neither the number of logs per cacher, nor the same working water wheel being used by more than one cacher.

[+cerberus1]

We did a few and I believe most were restricted to one per cacher.

As Mr. Yuck said, the waterfall one had two.

CJ (my other 2/3rds) wanted only one each anyway, as at the time we weren't sure if it would interfere with our "distinct" finds (she was one concerned with stats).

[+nikcap]

One of the things I enjoy about caching is doing it with friends. It doesn't seem to make sense to me to have only one cacher to be able to log a site. That completely goes against the group going caching together theme.

 

I'm all in favour of temporary locationless caches but not with a single finder approach.

 

"Once a site is logged, it cannot be used again" restrictions were imposed by LC owners if they choose to. Some had it, some didn't. For example, I know you could run out and log as many waterfalls as your heart desired. Kinda cheesy I know, but you could. Should Groundspeak accept the OP's proposal, they'd probably have to rule out any with those restrictions.

 

The waterfalls example is an interesting one and I had used it in discussions about Geocaching Challenges. I think that Challenge could have had a possibility for success if somehow GS could have promoted the idea it was about how many challenges one could complete, but about how one completed a challenge. I live in an area where there are over 100 waterfalls over 15 feet high withing 10 miles. There's one less than a 1/4 mile from my house that's pretty but it's only about 10 feet high and easily seen from one of the major roads through town. There is also one that is over 200 feet high with a straight drop into a gorge shaped like an ampitheatre. There are also quite a few "hidden" waterfalls 50-75 feet high (including another one about 1/4 mile from my house).

 

If a locationless caches feature were created I would like to see it implemented such that the focus was on the "best" instance of a specific type rather than the most instances of that type.

 

 

This is why Geocaching Challenges were very cool. With the thumbs up/thumbs down feature, the better (in theory) waterfalls would float up to the top and the poorer one would sink to the bottom.

 

When can I start the "Bring Back Geocaching Challenges" thread?

[+CanadianRockies]

This is why Geocaching Challenges were very cool. With the thumbs up/thumbs down feature, the better (in theory) waterfalls would float up to the top and the poorer one would sink to the bottom.

I know you could "like" particular Geocaching Challenges, but I don't remember having the ability to "like" individual finds within those challenges. I could be wrong about that, though.

[+Manville Possum]

This is why Geocaching Challenges were very cool. With the thumbs up/thumbs down feature, the better (in theory) waterfalls would float up to the top and the poorer one would sink to the bottom.

I know you could "like" particular Geocaching Challenges, but I don't remember having the ability to "like" individual finds within those challenges. I could be wrong about that, though.

 

I do, and that was one of the issues. People just giving them a thumbs down because they did not like challenges in general.

I enjoyed the Geocaching Challenges, it sure beat these fake Lab cache thingys.

[+geodarts]

This is why Geocaching Challenges were very cool. With the thumbs up/thumbs down feature, the better (in theory) waterfalls would float up to the top and the poorer one would sink to the bottom.

 

When can I start the "Bring Back Geocaching Challenges" thread?

 

In theory. I listed a challenge that required people to visit the best hidden waterfall in my area. It is on NPS land where traditional caching is not permitted. You have to walk/scramble on an unmaintained trail for a half-mile, so very few people know about it. I go there when the grass is green, wildflowers are blooming, the nettle is not too high, and water is flowing - it is a special place with no one around. But it instantly got a half-dozen thumbs down votes, more than the people who went there. Perhaps there are people who do not like such adventures, but I suspect it had to do with them not liking challenges.

 

That kind of thing makes me question the OP's suggestion to put locationless categories up for a vote. It might lead to a "vote for the worst" situation until we are kissing frogs and the experiment falls flat.

 

It would be fun if there was a type of temporary locationless over a defined period of time (six months during which there would be six caches?), but I still would want to call them something else and the problems seem significant. If they are called something else, perhaps call them challenges and use a superman icon! Or Groundspeak could give souvenirs for finding featured waymark categories - although that would not get you an icon on this side of the game and most of us would not notice.

Edited October 24, 2014 by geodarts

[+tozainamboku]

Locationless were found quite a bit, IIRC. Waymarks? Hmm...I looked at many of these easy-to-find, they-are-everywhere items, and a vast, vast majority of them from my home 220 miles to Anchorage are unlogged.

Finding a locationless is more like creating a waymark than visiting a waymark. The idea in both is to go out and find examples of something.

 

For locationless you simply had to submit a find log with the coordinates of the example you found. For Waymarks you need to write up a page, collect category specific information, generally post pictures, and then submit all this to the category managers to get it reviewed and published.

 

Given all the extra work involved for waymarks I find it interesting that way more waymarks have been created then there were ever find logs on locationless caches. Sure waymarks have the advantage of there being many more categories than there were locationless caches; and although most people thought it acceptable to find and log multiple examples of a locationless caches, many would only log one find per cache, while waymarkers who have a interest in a particular category may log hundreds of waymarks in that category.

Edited October 24, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+Isonzo Karst]

these fake Lab cache thingys

 

Interesting. The thing about a Lab cache is that it can be anything, anything that lets the seeker end up in possession of a codeword to log the find.

 

My observation is that the first time a Mega event has the opportunity to have labs, they don't quite grasp this notion - and they tend to place

temp trads.

 

But if you get to an event where someone has done Labs before, has time to think on the opportunity they present, is creative, then the Labs can be *quite* cool. (I don't like the no text logging, and don't always bother to log, but the experience can be good). The folks that put together the Labs (15 of them) at the GPS Maze opening event in Alabama had a clue about how to take advantage of the opportunity they present. They also had permission to go nuts with stuff in and around the air and space museum - the Labs were very fun.

 

Now return to your regularly scheduled thread.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Isonzo Karst

[+CanadianRockies]

If they are called something else, perhaps call them challenges...

Please don't. Geocaching Challenges caused enough confusion with already existing challenge caches.