[Thoto]

Great news on earthcache.org :
"
We are about to change the way EarthCaches are submitted, reviewed and published. The new system will dramatically speed up the review process and help you to develop your EarthCaches directly in the geocaching.com system. It is a HUGE step forward!

The current system will close on on 30 November. We will not be accepting any more submissions through this site. However the submittal guidelines and complete EarthCache listings will still be maintained here.

Please continue to develop your EarthCaches in anticipation of the launch of the new system.

The new system will commence on 9 December. From that date onwards you will be able to submit EarthCaches directly into the geocaching.com new cache form. A team of reviewers will work wth your submittal.

Please note that the standards for EarthCaches will not diminish, especially those relating to permission. Some other rules common to most cache types will come into force, such as the proximity and vacation cache rules.

We will make further announcements as the need arises on this site and in the EarthCache forums.

Thanks again for you support!

The EarthCache Team
"

[geodarts]

I suppose time will tell but I wonder what changes there will be in terms of proximity and vacation cache rules. For instance some of the best earthcaches I have done are those developed by TerryDad2 while he has been on trips. I am glad I got permission for my Grand Canyon earthcaches in time, but many of the classic earthcache locations have been developed by people out of the area, that presumably would run into vacation cache rules. So we may end up with more local earthcaches, placed in less-likely locatons, like one that is a piece of cut rock holding a plaque in place (not to single any one out). But this one has me nervous.

Proximity rules have been different with virtuals and physical caches. I have always appreciated being able to find a physical cache near where I go for an earthcache. The focus and experience is different. So I am not sure if all of the changes will be welcome, but it will be nice to work with the standard submission form.

This post has been edited by Erickson: 24 November 2009 - 09:31 PM

[cincol]

I agree - this new development is indeed interesting and I hope that the proximity and vacation rules do not affect the placing of EarthCaches. The question that I ask is "What maintenance is required on an EarthCache?" I believe the vacation rule was instituted in order to prevent geolitter being placed in areas that would not necessarily be visited by the cache owner on a regular basis. EarthCaches do not require this and therefore, IMHO, should not be subjected to this. I think it would be a great pity if this is implemented as it will deter many EarthCachers placing valuable, informative and educational EarthCaches in places around the world that would not normally have happened. I for one try to make a point of developing a new EarthCache at a location that I go to anywhere in the world, especially if there are no EarthCaches in that area. I know a number of other cachers who do the same. It will be a sad day for EarthCaching should the vacation rule be enforced for our beloved EarthCaches.

I hope that this thread will drum up enough support from the EarthCaching fraternity that the powers that be take cognisance of the fact. I look forward to some debate on the issue.

[kvhollis]

cincol, on Nov 24 2009, 11:39 PM, said:

I agree - this new development is indeed interesting and I hope that the proximity and vacation rules do not affect the placing of EarthCaches. The question that I ask is "What maintenance is required on an EarthCache?" I believe the vacation rule was instituted in order to prevent geolitter being placed in areas that would not necessarily be visited by the cache owner on a regular basis. EarthCaches do not require this and therefore, IMHO, should not be subjected to this. I think it would be a great pity if this is implemented as it will deter many EarthCachers placing valuable, informative and educational EarthCaches in places around the world that would not normally have happened. I for one try to make a point of developing a new EarthCache at a location that I go to anywhere in the world, especially if there are no EarthCaches in that area. I know a number of other cachers who do the same. It will be a sad day for EarthCaching should the vacation rule be enforced for our beloved EarthCaches.

I hope that this thread will drum up enough support from the EarthCaching fraternity that the powers that be take cognisance of the fact. I look forward to some debate on the issue.

Agreed.

I have spent now months on several locations securing permission. Now that I have it and have to do the write ups between work, family, and severe hand pain from carpel tunnel (and still working a few other places) I hate to see all of that effort go down the drain.

I hope the powers that be will see this and possibly reconsider at least the vacation rule.

[Carbon Hunter]

I think it is great to have the EarthCaches logges straight into Geocaching.com

A great step forward and thanks geoaware and all others involved in this.

I do hope that
1) The standards remeian the same
2) Geoaware remains the overall Reviewer-in-chief
3) Geoaware gets a team to help and is not spending a full time Earthcache only job
4) Current requireemnts remain in place (permissions / proximity and vacations have been mentioned - but also subjects / reviewers who know what they are doing / and the earth science focus of ECs)
5) that this leads to a greater acceptance of ECs by the geocaching community - not continued marginalisation


Well done - a positive move in my mind - I also hope that the Masters program remains in place too

[Thoto]

Carbon Hunter, on Nov 24 2009, 11:55 PM, said:

I think it is great to have the EarthCaches logges straight into Geocaching.com

A great step forward and thanks geoaware and all others involved in this.

I do hope that
1) The standards remeian the same
2) Geoaware remains the overall Reviewer-in-chief
3) Geoaware gets a team to help and is not spending a full time Earthcache only job
4) Current requireemnts remain in place (permissions / proximity and vacations have been mentioned - but also subjects / reviewers who know what they are doing / and the earth science focus of ECs)
5) that this leads to a greater acceptance of ECs by the geocaching community - not continued marginalisation


Well done - a positive move in my mind - I also hope that the Masters program remains in place too

Full Acknowledge

[Cav Scout]

Ditto.

I do a lot of traveling with my job and I find many EC locations when I'm out on my travels. I sure hope it doesn't come to point that I can't list EC locations while in a location I don't live in .

And the proximity rule? Often there are places that have several geological features within a 100 foot radius. I have sevarel EC locations that have 3 listings very close to each other. This is what makes ErathCaching fun .

And despite all of that has happened in the past, I hope Geoaware has final say so on the rules for EarthCaching .

cincol, on Nov 24 2009, 08:39 PM, said:

I agree - this new development is indeed interesting and I hope that the proximity and vacation rules do not affect the placing of EarthCaches. The question that I ask is "What maintenance is required on an EarthCache?" I believe the vacation rule was instituted in order to prevent geolitter being placed in areas that would not necessarily be visited by the cache owner on a regular basis. EarthCaches do not require this and therefore, IMHO, should not be subjected to this. I think it would be a great pity if this is implemented as it will deter many EarthCachers placing valuable, informative and educational EarthCaches in places around the world that would not normally have happened. I for one try to make a point of developing a new EarthCache at a location that I go to anywhere in the world, especially if there are no EarthCaches in that area. I know a number of other cachers who do the same. It will be a sad day for EarthCaching should the vacation rule be enforced for our beloved EarthCaches.

I hope that this thread will drum up enough support from the EarthCaching fraternity that the powers that be take cognisance of the fact. I look forward to some debate on the issue.

[Albatross1901]

With the huge number of new Earthcaches being developed in the last few months the reviewing job of the geoaware team became tremendeous. This may also be the home-made as a result of the master awards

Now I am able to develop my Earthcache on the more familiar form of GC and submit it when I am really absolutely satisfied with the description of the EC. This is positive!

Who will review the ECs now submitted to GC? Will this be the geoaware team as in the past or the voluntary reviewer in the specific regions? My understanding - I may be wrong - is that all ECs will be reviewed by geoaware as in the past, however, they will act as a kind of a global GC reviewer for ECs.

I agree with all of you that the proximity rule doesn't make sense for an Earthcache except for the fact that the icon may not be seen on the map with a too close proximity to other caches. Being on a caching tour an EC in the close neighbourhood has always been the cream on the coffee as we say in Germany.

In some regions there are not so many interesting geological locations whilst in others you may find an interesting place which deserves an EC almost every mile or so. Developing an EC to show these special places to others will be very limited should the vacation rule come into effect. There is no reason to apply this rule for a cache which needs no maintenance. It will only limit the development of interesting ECs depending on the activity of geocachers living nearby.

[TerryDad2]

With the vacation rule, that will eliminate about 20 I'm waiting for approval on. I'll have to see if there are any cachers in the areas by contacting the few traditionals that are in the area to see if they are willing to submit them for me. A few are in Wilderness areas, so nobody lives anywhere close to them and even the traditionals don't have local cachers.

I am happy to see the submittal go to geocaching.com. I'll be able to add the images and formatting for the reviewer to see during the approval process. I'm looking forward to the smoother submittal process.

[catsnfish]

I’d like to chime in on the coming changes for EarthCache submittals. Using the same submittal form as geocaches will be, I am sure, a great time saver and easier for everyone involved. A team of reviewers is also a great idea not only from a workload standpoint but would also allow discussion between reviewers if there are “grey” areas on a submittal. I would like to suggest “introductions” of the team once it is in place, their geocaching names and a little background on each member.
Now onto the points that I am sure will get the most discussion, proximity and vacation caches. If the full .1 mile proximity from a traditional cache would be applied, it has the potential of keeping many EarthCaches from being developed. Can you imagine,” One tenth of a mile from here is a spring, please email the cache owner: 1. The flow rate of the spring, and 2. What type of rock the spring issues from. While gathering your answers for this EarthCache be sure to get GCXXXXX “Tydee Bowl Man” cache that is velcro’d to the informational sign directly in front of the spring.”
Vacation caches hit a bit closer to home, (that’s an ironic statement) as I am working on 2 EC’s that are quite some distance from my location. I have been encouraging development of EarthCaches in my home state ever since I earned my bronze pin, and in that time few have been developed. The time, research and effort needed to develop an EC is not for everyone and those willing are also those that would and do travel great distances to experience and develop a site into an EarthCache. The two I am working on are relatively well known sites within the state but as far as I know the local cachers have not considered developing them. There are physical, traditional caches near both so the locations are not unknown. (yes, within .1 mile) We planned a trip that included visits to those sites specifically with the intention of developing them as EarthCaches. If it came to my attention that a local wanted to develop them, I would offer my research and write up for their use, it isn’t very important to me what EC is “mine” but a great site being developed into a lesson and shared with the community is. Without my interest in these sites they may never be shared as an EarthCache.
I am of the opinion, as are many, that the vacation cache policy was to prevent the placement of unmaintained physical caches that would soon become geolitter. EarthCaches, not having a container or log or swag, really doesn’t have what would be considered geolitter, although technically, erratics are… and kame’s and sedimentary features .. and fossils, fossils are definitely litter or at least the result of it. Sites are maintained by the managing agencies and/or by nature itself and without a container, all the cache owner owns is the cache page itself.
To mainstream EarthCaches so that the only difference from a traditional is a lack of container and a lesson, would be like making Event caches conform to proximity and vacation rules, there is no reason that Event caches should and no reason EC’s should either. Ammo cans make great caches but you can’t fit 30 people or the Grand Canyon into one.

[TerryDad2]

catsnfish, on Nov 25 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

... although technically, erratics are… and kame’s and sedimentary features .. and fossils, fossils are definitely litter or at least the result of it.

We won't get into coprolites

[Fish Below The Ice]

It seems to me that the problem with the vacation cache rule for earthcaches is that interesting geological features aren't necessarily in the same place as cachers who are willing to go to the trouble of putting together an earthcache. So if I want to get my next level of Earthcache Masters certification I have to find something interesting within 50 miles of my home. I suppose I could do that -- I could probably find three such places for my platinum level, for that matter -- but if I'm doing it at the same as all the other cachers in the area who want a Masters certification I suspect that it won't be long until we're at Barrel Bottom Scraping Time. ("Oh look, it's another earthcache asking us to measure the diameter of a glacial erratic!")

I think the Earthcache program would be better suited by having a cache placed at a truly interesting location in an area where no regular cachers live than a barely-good-enough-to-qualify cache that just happens to be within 50 milers of a cacher's house.

[Cav Scout]

Check this one out http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...81-34fbf88950d5

TerryDad2, on Nov 25 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

catsnfish, on Nov 25 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

... although technically, erratics are… and kame’s and sedimentary features .. and fossils, fossils are definitely litter or at least the result of it.

We won't get into coprolites

[Konnarock Kid & Marge]

TerryDad2, on Nov 25 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

With the vacation rule, that will eliminate about 20 I'm waiting for approval on. I'll have to see if there are any cachers in the areas by contacting the few traditionals that are in the area to see if they are willing to submit them for me. A few are in Wilderness areas, so nobody lives anywhere close to them and even the traditionals don't have local cachers.

I am happy to see the submittal go to geocaching.com. I'll be able to add the images and formatting for the reviewer to see during the approval process. I'm looking forward to the smoother submittal process.

I couldn't have said it better myself.
There is absolutely no need for vacation and proximity rules for EarthCaches. If these rules are suddenly applied, then this move to Groundspeak is not in the best interest of EarthCaching. Speaking of the proximity rule, doesn't the masters program contradict it i.e. developing ECs in different States? I guess it is OK if you live in a Tri-State area and there are available EC sites!
The only proximity rule that has been applied to ECs is now infamous "30 foot rule". That applied to other close-by caches! Never, I repeat, never has the .1 mile rule applied to ECs and never should it be applied!

Edited for dumbness!
I don't know what I was thinking. I just returned from several days in the woods so my brain hasn't thawed out! First of all, it doesn't matter what State you develop an ECs in. Second, bedside that, it has nothing to do with proximity. The proximity rule of a .1 mile distance doesn't have anything to do with States. But,............we still don't need it!
The vacation rule is even more nauseous. I know some of the very best ECs have been developed by those who visited the site while on a vacation and/or work trip. Duh, there is not a lot of maintenance for ECs!

This post has been edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge: 25 November 2009 - 02:29 PM

[TerryDad2]

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on Nov 25 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

I couldn't have said it better myself.
There is absolutely no need for vacation and proximity rules for EarthCaches. If these rules are suddenly applied, then this move to Groundspeak is not in the best interest of EarthCaching. Speaking of the proximity rule, doesn't the masters program contradict it i.e. developing ECs in different States? I guess it is OK if you live in a Tri-State area and there are available EC sites!
The only proximity rule that has been applied to ECs is now infamous "30 foot rule". That applied to other close-by caches! Never, I repeat, never has the .1 mile rule applied to ECs and never should it be applied!

The EC Masters requirement is to visit ECs in multiple states/countries. The creation requirement does not need to be in multiple states.

[Konnarock Kid & Marge]

TerryDad2, on Nov 25 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on Nov 25 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

I couldn't have said it better myself.
There is absolutely no need for vacation and proximity rules for EarthCaches. If these rules are suddenly applied, then this move to Groundspeak is not in the best interest of EarthCaching. Speaking of the proximity rule, doesn't the masters program contradict it i.e. developing ECs in different States? I guess it is OK if you live in a Tri-State area and there are available EC sites!
The only proximity rule that has been applied to ECs is now infamous "30 foot rule". That applied to other close-by caches! Never, I repeat, never has the .1 mile rule applied to ECs and never should it be applied!

The EC Masters requirement is to visit ECs in multiple states/countries. The creation requirement does not need to be in multiple states.

I corrected my earlier post. Thanks.
Both rule changes are totally unnecessary. By the way, who is proposing the rule changes?

[geodarts]

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on Nov 25 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

The only proximity rule that has been applied to ECs is now infamous "30 foot rule". That applied to other close-by caches! Never, I repeat, never has the .1 mile rule applied to ECs . . . . The vacation rule is even more nauseous. I know some of the very best ECs have been developed by those who visited the site while on a vacation and/or work trip. Duh, there is not a lot of maintenance for ECs!

The thread below (earthcache denials) may indicate that proximity has been a factor, but I have been thinking a lot about restrictions on vacation caches. I wonder what kind of negotiations with Groundspeak led to that one, how much Groundspeak understands earthcaches, if the company itself has different factions. I don't suppose we will ever know but I can only hope that restrictions are not written in stone.

This post has been edited by Erickson: 25 November 2009 - 05:58 PM

[catsnfish]

Cav Scout, on Nov 25 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

Check this one out http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...81-34fbf88950d5

TerryDad2, on Nov 25 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

catsnfish, on Nov 25 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

... although technically, erratics are… and kame’s and sedimentary features .. and fossils, fossils are definitely litter or at least the result of it.

We won't get into coprolites

I am definitely going to visit that one when I'm in the area! I'll make sure to bring my paddle too!

[TerryDad2]

catsnfish, on Nov 25 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

Cav Scout, on Nov 25 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

Check this one out http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...81-34fbf88950d5

TerryDad2, on Nov 25 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

catsnfish, on Nov 25 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

... although technically, erratics are… and kame’s and sedimentary features .. and fossils, fossils are definitely litter or at least the result of it.

We won't get into coprolites

I am definitely going to visit that one when I'm in the area! I'll make sure to bring my paddle too!

Then you wouldn't be up a creek...

[Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Erickson, on Nov 25 2009, 08:57 PM, said:

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on Nov 25 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

The only proximity rule that has been applied to ECs is now infamous "30 foot rule". That applied to other close-by caches! Never, I repeat, never has the .1 mile rule applied to ECs . . . . The vacation rule is even more nauseous. I know some of the very best ECs have been developed by those who visited the site while on a vacation and/or work trip. Duh, there is not a lot of maintenance for ECs!

The thread below (earthcache denials) may indicate that proximity has been a factor, but I have been thinking a lot about restrictions on vacation caches. I wonder what kind of negotiations with Groundspeak led to that one, how much Groundspeak understands earthcaches, if the company itself has different factions. I don't suppose we will ever know but I can only hope that restrictions are not written in stone.

Yep, you're right, that's why I called it the "infamous" 30 foot rule. Luckily, the .1 mile rule never was applied formally or informally to EarthCaches.
You mentioned negotiations, what negotiations?
You also mentioned the possibility of different fractions. A close look at the bias displayed by at least one of their (Groundspeak's) moderators will give you the chills. This guy does not show his disdain for ECs under his moderator name, but everyone knows who he is and please believe me he would just as soon see ECs relegated to the depths of where the magma doesn't cool! And just think, everyone thinks he is great! A few of us requested that coins/TBs be allowed to be logged through ECs just like other caches that have no box or one so small that it couldn't hold a coin. Groundspeak welcomed that idea with open arms showing their fondness for ECs. Just read the posts on the appropriate threads.
At this point, we cannot agree or disagree with the OP's beginning statement, "Great news on earthcache.org"! As you said, "only time will tell"????

This post has been edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge: 25 November 2009 - 07:39 PM

[catsnfish]

TerryDad2, on Nov 25 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

catsnfish, on Nov 25 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

Cav Scout, on Nov 25 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

Check this one out http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...81-34fbf88950d5

TerryDad2, on Nov 25 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

catsnfish, on Nov 25 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

... although technically, erratics are… and kame’s and sedimentary features .. and fossils, fossils are definitely litter or at least the result of it.

We won't get into coprolites

I am definitely going to visit that one when I'm in the area! I'll make sure to bring my paddle too!

Then you wouldn't be up a creek...

I intended to go down the creek!!

[terratin]

I don't think the vacation rule is a good idea. Sure, in active countries like the States you could always find someone taking care of the cache for you, but this would most likely eliminate all earthcache options in developing countries. Should we wait until this countries are developed enough so locals run around with a GPS? Sometimes, the proximity to existing earthcaches influences where I spend my vacation, sometimes it's where there's a lack of earthcaches but a lot of potential. I think it's a shame should the chance to learn something about geology in those less-cached countries vanish

Nina

[Cav Scout]

If the vacation rule does take effect, how would it work for someone like me? Im constantly moving. My home is Illinois, Washington, Kentucky, Colorado, and I'm still a resident of Alaska. Will I have to prove my where abouts with a electric bill at the time of submittal .

Hopefully the vacation rule will be dropped for ECs.

[Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Cav Scout, on Nov 26 2009, 09:30 AM, said:

If the vacation rule does take effect, how would it work for someone like me? Im constantly moving. My home is Illinois, Washington, Kentucky, Colorado, and I'm still a resident of Alaska. Will I have to prove my where abouts with a electric bill at the time of submittal .

Hopefully the vacation rule will be dropped for ECs.

Ditto!
One last point, too much has been cloaked in mystery regarding EarthCaches in the past and now, in my opinion only, the new approach is off to a equally mysterious start.
For instance, who are all of the reviewers and are they EarthCachers?
Why the change in rules (vacation and proximity)? Is this a trial balloon or a threat? Obviously, no one favors the changes.
What about programs like the masters program. Are they extinct or alive and well?
What will GSA have to do with EarthCaching? Will they have any control of just token input? Will GSA still sell EC stuff?
Will there be a moderator assigned to this forum, especially one that doesn't hate EarthCaching?
One of my biggest past complaints was when questions are posed on this forum it was like "pulling hen's teeth" to get an answer from someone in authority. Will that change and who will answer questions or respond to requests?
Well, maybe these are not mysteries but they are questions on a lot of our minds.
Thanks.
P.S. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

[The Leprechauns]

I applaud the GSA and Groundspeak for their work in getting earthcaches aligned with the listing guidelines and procedures used for geocaches. Making the saturation guideline and the maintenance guideline applicable to earthcaches is a positive change. So is the move to the standard cache submittal form.

[Cav Scout]

Taa Daa! Just like magic!

The Leprechauns, on Nov 26 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

I applaud the GSA and Groundspeak for their work in getting earthcaches aligned with the listing guidelines and procedures used for geocaches. Making the saturation guideline and the maintenance guideline applicable to earthcaches is a positive change. So is the move to the standard cache submittal form.

[Konnarock Kid & Marge]

The Leprechauns, on Nov 26 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

I applaud the GSA and Groundspeak for their work in getting earthcaches aligned with the listing guidelines and procedures used for geocaches. Making the saturation guideline and the maintenance guideline applicable to earthcaches is a positive change. So is the move to the standard cache submittal form.

"Applicable to EarthCaches?" Just a couple of quotes from the guidelines:

"Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m)." This is the .1 mile rule that keeps guard rail micros from being placed every 100 feet.

"It may be difficult to fulfill your maintenance obligations if you place a cache while traveling on vacation or otherwise outside of your normal caching area." This is the so called vacation rule.

Now please explain where these rules are applicable to ECs. The last time I looked NO ONE has ever complained about over-saturation of EarthCaches and the lack of owner/developer maintenance. We generally leave the maintenance up to God and the saturation up to the reviewer to determine if the 'newly' submitted EC is truly different from the one that is nearby!

Hey what the heck, while we are at it why not put ECs under this Cache Contents rule:
"Use your common sense in most cases. Explosives, fireworks, ammo, lighters, knives (including pocket knives and multi-tools), drugs, alcohol or other illicit material shouldn't be placed in a cache" I almost forgot, ECs don't have cache contents.

Or, how about this one, "Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak" After all we do a lot of advertising for the National Parks, State Parks and even blatantly commercial establishments like pay-to-view (i.e. private caves, etc.) sites. Oops, there goes a whole lot more ECs down the archiving drain!

Geez, maybe EarthCaches are different.

Please, whoever is in charge or will be in charge, don't put ECs under the saturation and vacation rules umbrella. Next, they (ECs) will fall under the ALR guidelines and poof, ECs will be no more!

This post has been edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge: 26 November 2009 - 12:07 PM

[The Leprechauns]

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on Nov 26 2009, 01:16 PM, said:

The Leprechauns, on Nov 26 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

I applaud the GSA and Groundspeak for their work in getting earthcaches aligned with the listing guidelines and procedures used for geocaches. Making the saturation guideline and the maintenance guideline applicable to earthcaches is a positive change. So is the move to the standard cache submittal form.

"Applicable to EarthCaches?" Just a couple of quotes from the guidelines:

"Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m)." This is the .1 mile rule that keeps guard rail micros from being placed every 100 feet.

"It may be difficult to fulfill your maintenance obligations if you place a cache while traveling on vacation or otherwise outside of your normal caching area." This is the so called vacation rule.

Now please explain where these rules are applicable to ECs.

These are the guidelines which, when properly applied, will keep distant interlopers from taking a virtual dump right on top of a perfectly placed ammo box that already does a fine job of showing off the geology of the area. And that is a good thing.

[geodarts]

The Leprechauns, on Nov 26 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

These are the guidelines which, when properly applied, will keep distant interlopers from taking a virtual dump right on top of a perfectly placed ammo box that already does a fine job of showing off the geology of the area. And that is a good thing.

Unless you actually want to learn about geology, which is in keeping with Groundspeak's educational mission. Or unless its in a National Park where ammo cans will never be welcome. Or unless you do not believe that different types of experiences can co-exist under the same umbrella.

But proximity is probably not as great of a concern as the "vacation cache" type of rules. I don't know how far my North Rim of the Grand Canyon Earthcaches (or the many caches developed by TerryDad2 we have done in various National Parks) are from anybody who would be willing to take them under their wing, but given the size and location of some of the National Park boundaries, the vacation cache rules might still be a problem. And, as an example, I would not be too concerned about whether the Hoodoos of Bryce Canyon are a virtual dump. But the geology of some of these areas is so special that I cannot imagine a category of earthcaches that might exclude them.

Some of the best earthcaches, and some of the best ways to incorporate education on a trip, are found in the areas that people have visited precisely because it has been a vacation.

This post has been edited by Erickson: 26 November 2009 - 02:53 PM

[Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Erickson, on Nov 26 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

The Leprechauns, on Nov 26 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

These are the guidelines which, when properly applied, will keep distant interlopers from taking a virtual dump right on top of a perfectly placed ammo box that already does a fine job of showing off the geology of the area. And that is a good thing.

Unless you actually want to learn about geology, which is in keeping with Groundspeak's educational mission. Or unless its in a National Park where ammo cans will never be welcome. Or unless you do not believe that different types of experiences can co-exist under the same umbrella.

But proximity is probably not as great of a concern as the "vacation cache" type of rules. I don't know how far my North Rim of the Grand Canyon Earthcaches (or the many caches developed by TerryDad2 we have done in various National Parks) are from anybody who would be willing to take them under their wing, but given the size of some of the National Park boundaries, the vacation cache rules might still be a problem. And I would not be too concerned about whether the Hoodoos of Bryce Canyon are a virttual dump. Or for that matter, the many other virtuals that are still there.

Some of the best earthcaches, and some of the best ways to incorporate education on a trip, are found in the areas that people have visited precisely because it has been a vacation.

As usual, very well said. At least you respond to an entire post and not just conveniently cut and paste! Thanks for all of your contributions to EarthCaching. It's nice to hear from participants!

[Cav Scout]

But yet you dont have a problem taking a ammo box "dump" on top of a geological formation .

The Leprechauns, on Nov 26 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

[/b]These are the guidelines which, when properly applied, will keep distant interlopers from taking a virtual dump right on top of a perfectly placed ammo box that already does a fine job of showing off the geology of the area. And that is a good thing.

This post has been edited by Cav Scout: 26 November 2009 - 03:24 PM

[TerryDad2]

The Leprechauns, on Nov 26 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

These are the guidelines which, when properly applied, will keep distant interlopers from taking a virtual dump right on top of a perfectly placed ammo box that already does a fine job of showing off the geology of the area. And that is a good thing.

I will say that many of my caches would fall under the vacation cache rule. I will continue to develop these vacation EarthCaches, and if I have to find some local cacher to submit them, so be it. I will be disappointed and development will just take a bit longer. I still want to contribute to the geocaching community and have fun doing it.

I am defiantly on the side against banning vacation based EarthCaches. Based on the 10000+ logs for these EarthCaches listed from my vacations, I conclude that they have been a positive contribution to the geocaching community. They have been appreciated for not only their educational value, but also the variety of finds they are from the generic container find. These are sediments pulled directly from the logs not my own impression or wishful thinking. I suggest you go through and read some of the logs for yourself before label us interlopers and categorizing EarthCaches placed while on vacations virtual dumps.

I have been instrumental in developing EarthCaches in National Parks, educating staff about EarthCaches, and even opening up some parks that had outright banned any kind of caching at all. These were done on vacation.

There is already an EarthCache policy that does not allow the placement of an EarthCache that repeats the same geologic information of any other type of cache in the same location. Expanding or providing different information is allowed.

The use of interloper and virtual dump on top of a perfectly placed ammo box implies that cachers have some implicit ownership over an area. That idea I feel is contrary to the geocaching.com ideals that anyone can develop/place any kind of cache. I have made repeated offers to help others develop EarthCaches, so I sure don't have that idea about placing EarthCaches. There have been a few I even gave all my research away so that others could develop their EarthCaches. I don't think the geocaching community would support your ideas on area ownership. They would support you in preventing geotrash as previously mentioned by others.

[softball29]

I'm hoping they explain the distance rule in regard to Earthcaches soon. I am, finally, in the midst of developing a couple of Earthcaches and one part of one is somewhat near an existing cache. I will be quite peeved if I can't do this one because of a physical cache.

This whole thing baffles me. The old adage -- if it ain't broke don't fix it -- seems to work well here.

I guess if I have to try and move quickly to get these written and submitted before the end of November, I'll see what I can do.

[Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Thoto, on Nov 24 2009, 04:51 PM, said:

Great news on earthcache.org :
"
We are about to change the way EarthCaches are submitted, reviewed and published. The new system will dramatically speed up the review process and help you to develop your EarthCaches directly in the geocaching.com system. It is a HUGE step forward!

The current system will close on on 30 November. We will not be accepting any more submissions through this site. However the submittal guidelines and complete EarthCache listings will still be maintained here.

Please continue to develop your EarthCaches in anticipation of the launch of the new system.

The new system will commence on 9 December. From that date onwards you will be able to submit EarthCaches directly into the geocaching.com new cache form. A team of reviewers will work wth your submittal.

Please note that the standards for EarthCaches will not diminish, especially those relating to permission. Some other rules common to most cache types will come into force, such as the proximity and vacation cache rules.

We will make further announcements as the need arises on this site and in the EarthCache forums.

Thanks again for you support!

The EarthCache Team
"

"We will make further announcements as the need arises on this site and in the EarthCache forums."
I believe the need has arose.

Since speculation is running at an all-time fever pitch, would you mind responding to some of the issues presented with your post? I assume that you are a member of the newly formed "The EarthCache Team". It is not really fair to make such a far reaching announcement and not respond to concerns elicited by it! Usually an OP takes ownership of his/her thread.

If answers to some questions posed here are not yet finalized just say so but please estimate when the answers will be forthcoming.
When you upset some of our most prolific and recognized EarthCachers, obviously something is wrong.

Pay no attention to those who hate EarthCaches and say illogical and demeaning stuff like "I think earthcaches are misguided and detrimental to geocaching, but I have no problem with the people who hide and find them." That's like stating I hate vandalism but I have nothing against the vandals.

The only people who count or should count are those who participate in and contribute to EarthCaching. I don't want to mention their names but it is obvious that some of our EarthCaching icons have a lot of concerns. Just ignore those who slur and defame our fun and respond to those who take part and please give us some answers. Thanks a lot.

[Thoto]

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on Nov 27 2009, 06:09 AM, said:

It is not really fair to make such a far reaching announcement and not respond to concerns elicited by it! Usually an OP takes ownership of his/her thread.

I have to appoligize, but the intention of the fact that I have copied the announcment which I read on earthcache.org was just because I thought that you might be interested in this information. I have not written the announcement and I am not responsible for its content. Therefore I can not answer your questions. I feel sorry that you got a different impression by posting this information here. This was never my intention. Especially I never wanted to annoy any of the honorable earthcache developers in this forum. Big sorry to all of you.

But I have learnt my lesson: I will never publish an announcement in this forum which I have not written myself.

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on Nov 27 2009, 06:09 AM, said:

"I think earthcaches are misguided and detrimental to geocaching, but I have no problem with the people who hide and find them."

Do you mean that I have said that? I would never say somethink like that!

This post has been edited by Thoto: 27 November 2009 - 06:31 AM

[Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Thoto, on Nov 27 2009, 09:29 AM, said:

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on Nov 27 2009, 06:09 AM, said:

It is not really fair to make such a far reaching announcement and not respond to concerns elicited by it! Usually an OP takes ownership of his/her thread.

I have to appoligize, but the intention of the fact that I have copied the announcment which I read on earthcache.org was just because I thought that you might be interested in this information. I have not written the announcement and I am not responsible for its content. Therefore I can not answer your questions. I feel sorry that you got a different impression by posting this information here. This was never my intention. Especially I never wanted to annoy any of the honorable earthcache developers in this forum. Big sorry to all of you.

But I have learnt my lesson: I will never publish an announcement in this forum which I have not written myself.

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on Nov 27 2009, 06:09 AM, said:

"I think earthcaches are misguided and detrimental to geocaching, but I have no problem with the people who hide and find them."

Do you mean that I have said that? I would never say somethink like that!

"Do you mean that I have said that? I would never say somethink like that!"
Heavens no! I would never imply that you would say such a thing. You are one of us!
That is a quote from someone else who has posted on your thread.

I am sorry that you have had to take ownership for something you really didn't start other than advising us of the changes. Anyway, I want to thank you for the notification because if you had not done that, many of us would have missed the dramatic announcement.

Now to TPTB, someone is making the changes (Geoaware?) so why not take ownership and answer our questions? Thanks.

This post has been edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge: 27 November 2009 - 06:44 AM

[AHOLLYS]

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on Nov 27 2009, 06:42 AM, said:

Thoto, on Nov 27 2009, 09:29 AM, said:

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on Nov 27 2009, 06:09 AM, said:

It is not really fair to make such a far reaching announcement and not respond to concerns elicited by it! Usually an OP takes ownership of his/her thread.

I have to appoligize, but the intention of the fact that I have copied the announcment which I read on earthcache.org was just because I thought that you might be interested in this information. I have not written the announcement and I am not responsible for its content. Therefore I can not answer your questions. I feel sorry that you got a different impression by posting this information here. This was never my intention. Especially I never wanted to annoy any of the honorable earthcache developers in this forum. Big sorry to all of you.

But I have learnt my lesson: I will never publish an announcement in this forum which I have not written myself.

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on Nov 27 2009, 06:09 AM, said:

"I think earthcaches are misguided and detrimental to geocaching, but I have no problem with the people who hide and find them."

Do you mean that I have said that? I would never say somethink like that!

"Do you mean that I have said that? I would never say somethink like that!"
Heavens no! I would never imply that you would say such a thing. You are one of us!
That is a quote from someone else who has posted on your thread.

I am sorry that you have had to take ownership for something you really didn't start other than advising us of the changes. Anyway, I want to thank you for the notification because if you had not done that, many of us would have missed the dramatic announcement.

Now to TPTB, someone is making the changes (Geoaware?) so why not take ownership and answer our questions? Thanks.

Thoto,

If you would not have posted that notice, who knows how long it would have been before I knew about this. I find reposting this information to this forum is totally approperate.

Sorry for my bad spelling.

[geoaware]

Folks

Firstly I would like to thank Thoto for placing the announcement into the forums. Peoples comments are always read with interest when we are making decisions.

In the period of transition we are finalizing a range of review issues. When we have decisions made we will announce them. Please be patient - we are working to make sure EC continue to be popular and fit in with the rest of geocaching.

We have been working closely with Groundspeak and now have an EarthCache review team with people who have vast experience in caching and EC's. We are absolutely delighted to have such a wonderful group of people who will strive to make the process better for all. This is very much a joint Groundspeak/EarthCache process, and it will positively strengthen EarthCaching.


Geoaware.

[Konnarock Kid & Marge]

geoaware, on Nov 27 2009, 12:13 PM, said:

Folks

Firstly I would like to thank Thoto for placing the announcement into the forums. Peoples comments are always read with interest when we are making decisions.

In the period of transition we are finalizing a range of review issues. When we have decisions made we will announce them. Please be patient - we are working to make sure EC continue to be popular and fit in with the rest of geocaching.

We have been working closely with Groundspeak and now have an EarthCache review team with people who have vast experience in caching and EC's. We are absolutely delighted to have such a wonderful group of people who will strive to make the process better for all. This is very much a joint Groundspeak/EarthCache process, and it will positively strengthen EarthCaching.


Geoaware.

Many, many thanks to you for the response. I apologize for putting you on the spot but as you noticed a lot of questions arose from the announcement. You are right and perhaps some of us, including me, need to be more patient. I know you have more invested in EarthCaching than all of the rest of us combined.......after all you started it!
Geoaware, what truly upsets us the most is the thought that a certain non-EarthCacher who loves to dump on ECs and EarthCaching may have a say so in any final outcome. The sad thing, he is one of the voices who help 'control' this forum!
Along with the patience, we need to put our trust in you to take care of this wonderful hobby as I said you started it or another way of putting it, you are the Godfather of EarthCaching!
Thanks again.

[Cav Scout]

I wonder who these people are .

geoaware, on Nov 27 2009, 09:13 AM, said:

We have been working closely with Groundspeak and now have an EarthCache review team with people who have vast experience in caching and EC's. We are absolutely delighted to have such a wonderful group of people who will strive to make the process better for all. This is very much a joint Groundspeak/EarthCache process, and it will positively strengthen EarthCaching.


Geoaware.

[AHOLLYS]

Cav Scout, on Nov 27 2009, 06:04 PM, said:

I wonder who these people are .

geoaware, on Nov 27 2009, 09:13 AM, said:

We have been working closely with Groundspeak and now have an EarthCache review team with people who have vast experience in caching and EC's. We are absolutely delighted to have such a wonderful group of people who will strive to make the process better for all. This is very much a joint Groundspeak/EarthCache process, and it will positively strengthen EarthCaching.

Geoaware.

I am curious to see who they are too. They seem so mysterious.

[Grasshoppers&Ant]

I'm in wholehearted agreement with the main sentiments, that the change is great except for the proximity and vacation restrictions.

But I will confess to something as well, and explain how vacation EC's expanded my horizon and motivated me to get going on our own ECs, both at home and on vacation.

Almost a couple of years back several new ECs popped up in New Mexico - by some obvious out-of-stater then known as just Cav Scout.
As we had just visited one of the locations and done preliminary research at the visitor's center (that we missed on previous visits), I felt a bit cut off! geoaware can attest to that as I fired off a whining email about EC's set up apparently without visiting the location. Her short, calm reply told us to just submit ours and not worry about other developers. I got over my tantrum and got to work.
Still most (80%?) of the NM ECs are vacation ECs. Although I'd prefer to see more locals creating them, I'm glad others have done it. I'm curious to know roughly what % of all ECs are really vacation ECs? I also hope the motivation behind possibly adding this restriction is something other than simply bowing to the general Groundspeak rules. I dare say if vacation ECs go away, the number of new submittals may drop substantially. Reducing the workload from the recent onslaught may be good motivation! Maybe the vacation developers have motivated locals and created the surge? (half joking)

I'm now convinced that EarthCache Jedi Master really visited White Sands and the other locations at some point, but then there's the "two month" rule (under #3) that could be used even against us. Land manager approval (and education) on our most recent effort took 3 months. Our EC wasn't their priority, nor should it have been.

Finally, here we are on vacation, and now that I've got more of the hang of visualizing a future EC, I've seen a great location for one. But it's not going to be done by the 30th as I barely sent a note to the land managment two days ago. I could turn it over to someone local, but that's more work to find someone and their vision may not be the same. We're hoping for some relief on this proposed change.

[TerryDad2]

Grasshoppers&Ant, on Nov 27 2009, 10:24 PM, said:

I'm curious to know roughly what % of all ECs are really vacation ECs?

Based only on my submittals, at least 4%.

That includes the ones I developed before I moved and are now not local to me. Though, now I adoped many of those out. I tried to select local cachers when I adoped them out, but due to location that didn't always happen.

[softball29]

Question for some out there ... if I read correctly, if I finish the work on the EC I am working on currently before Dec. 1, I submit things the old way and on the Earthcache site?

[Cav Scout]

I remember this when I was challenged as if I was REALLY there or not,LOL. This is one of the reasons I ad a photo of myself at each EarthCache I develope. Its hard for some people to believe all of the places I been. I do travel and I am in the Military (23years). I was once accused of never being in Iraq too .

I was TDY in NM for 6 months training up our Naitional Guard and Reserve forces for deployment to Iraq and Afganastan. During my off time I explored as much as I could. I think I actually have seen and been to more places around Las Cruses and Alamorgodo than the locals who live there.

There are many places around that area that can be developed as ECs, but many folks dont wanna mess with EC submittals. This is why the vacation rule should not apply for the obvious out of stater people. We are like the Johnny Appleseed of EarthCachers. We plant them and you come and pick the apples from the sites.

Cache on!

Grasshoppers&Ant, on Nov 27 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

I'm in wholehearted agreement with the main sentiments, that the change is great except for the proximity and vacation restrictions.

But I will confess to something as well, and explain how vacation EC's expanded my horizon and motivated me to get going on our own ECs, both at home and on vacation.

Almost a couple of years back several new ECs popped up in New Mexico - by some obvious out-of-stater then known as just Cav Scout.
As we had just visited one of the locations and done preliminary research at the visitor's center (that we missed on previous visits), I felt a bit cut off! geoaware can attest to that as I fired off a whining email about EC's set up apparently without visiting the location. Her short, calm reply told us to just submit ours and not worry about other developers. I got over my tantrum and got to work.
Still most (80%?) of the NM ECs are vacation ECs. Although I'd prefer to see more locals creating them, I'm glad others have done it. I'm curious to know roughly what % of all ECs are really vacation ECs? I also hope the motivation behind possibly adding this restriction is something other than simply bowing to the general Groundspeak rules. I dare say if vacation ECs go away, the number of new submittals may drop substantially. Reducing the workload from the recent onslaught may be good motivation! Maybe the vacation developers have motivated locals and created the surge? (half joking)

I'm now convinced that EarthCache Jedi Master really visited White Sands and the other locations at some point, but then there's the "two month" rule (under #3) that could be used even against us. Land manager approval (and education) on our most recent effort took 3 months. Our EC wasn't their priority, nor should it have been.

Finally, here we are on vacation, and now that I've got more of the hang of visualizing a future EC, I've seen a great location for one. But it's not going to be done by the 30th as I barely sent a note to the land managment two days ago. I could turn it over to someone local, but that's more work to find someone and their vision may not be the same. We're hoping for some relief on this proposed change.

This post has been edited by Cav Scout: 28 November 2009 - 03:19 AM

[Cav Scout]

They must be the Delta Force of EarthCachers. I have no idea who they could be and could never guess who could be on such a elite team.

I am looking forward to seeing them in action!

AHOLLYS, on Nov 27 2009, 08:55 PM, said:

Cav Scout, on Nov 27 2009, 06:04 PM, said:

I wonder who these people are .

geoaware, on Nov 27 2009, 09:13 AM, said:

We have been working closely with Groundspeak and now have an EarthCache review team with people who have vast experience in caching and EC's. We are absolutely delighted to have such a wonderful group of people who will strive to make the process better for all. This is very much a joint Groundspeak/EarthCache process, and it will positively strengthen EarthCaching.

Geoaware.

I am curious to see who they are too. They seem so mysterious.

[geoaware]

Folks...maybe its time that some of these things are put into perspective.

One of the issues we have about EC not being visited by developers (ie vacation EC) is safety. We have already had a number of EC which have ended up on closed trails and roads. We have had a number of EC submitted that the entire site has disappeared (flood, landslides) and we have had a number of EC submitted where the coordinates are off cliffs (not so much the vacation issue but the 'people not visiting the site issue'.). We would hate for any cacher to be hurt because of a safety issue at an EC. Having a local looking after an EC will increase the chances that changing local conditions will be considered in managing an EC. It will also assist the EC being monitored to make sure that damage is not being done to the site - another issue we have, especially at fossil sites. Being an owner of an EC gives you some responsibility for being the mentor/custodian of the site.

We have also had to deal with quite a number of EC being placed directly at the location of an existing traditional cache. This has caused a lot of damage within the caching community as the original cache owners feel that the EC does not add to the experience that their cache offers. In almost all the instances I believe that a traditional cache does not provide a lesson on the local geology - and therefore the EC has been published. That said, we are now getting to the situation that EC are being placed too close to existing EC. A distance rule will assist us in solving the issues that this creates.

Of course the biggest issues we have in permission. The reason EC have been allowed to be developed on some US/Canada/Australia public lands in which normal caches are banned is BECAUSE of the EC permission system. We have worked hard ever since the very first EC meeting with Groundspeak and these agencies to help open the doors to the placement of EC and other caches on those lands. Every attempt to remove or work around that process puts all EC (and other cache types) at risk. We have had all of the following - not getting permission, getting a permission then not following the land managers instructions, lying about permissions etc. The land managers report all these up the line in their agency, and then we have to do battle at the top. All the hard work we have done to open the doors for all is shattered cause of a careless few. Its very sad to see happen.

What ever the final rues will be, existing EC will be grandfathered into the system.

For EC to continue to grow and provide wonderful experiences for visitors, we all have to work together as a team to make sure all these issues are being addressed.

The geoaware team has taken a lot of flack over the years for decisions that have been based on keeping EC viable in the geocaching community and with other agencies. Most of that we don't deserve. We are here to serve the EC community....and we work amazing hours (its 5am here on a Saturday) to keep the wheels oiled. All we ask if for some rational understanding and support while we go through this transition to a much better system for all.

G&A

This post has been edited by geoaware: 28 November 2009 - 04:58 AM

[The Leprechauns]

Thank you, geoaware, for taking time out of your weekend to provide that very helpful explanation. As I posted before, I am happy to see these changes. What's been described so far are great "first steps."

[Neos2]

The Leprechauns, on Nov 26 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on Nov 26 2009, 01:16 PM, said:

The Leprechauns, on Nov 26 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

I applaud the GSA and Groundspeak for their work in getting earthcaches aligned with the listing guidelines and procedures used for geocaches. Making the saturation guideline and the maintenance guideline applicable to earthcaches is a positive change. So is the move to the standard cache submittal form.

"Applicable to EarthCaches?" Just a couple of quotes from the guidelines:

"Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m)." This is the .1 mile rule that keeps guard rail micros from being placed every 100 feet.

"It may be difficult to fulfill your maintenance obligations if you place a cache while traveling on vacation or otherwise outside of your normal caching area." This is the so called vacation rule.

Now please explain where these rules are applicable to ECs.

These are the guidelines which, when properly applied, will keep distant interlopers from taking a virtual dump right on top of a perfectly placed ammo box that already does a fine job of showing off the geology of the area. And that is a good thing.

Understood. But then again, is that taking into account that not all EarthCachers are also geocachers?

I use the EarthCache database in my teaching. Where we live, there are many water and glacier related features, but not much in the way of phenomena caused by earthquakes and nothing caused by volcanoes, so we don't have igneous features or even many local examples of metamorphism. We're a long way from any coastal feature here in Indiana also.

I can search the EarthCache database for suitable examples of the kinds of features we lack around here, and even teach my students how to use the search engine to locate the EarthCaches of specific types. They can use the photographs and the responses on the EarthCache page to learn the answers to questions I pose about the features.

I can't do that with geocaches.

Additionally, there are geocaches that do highlight some geologic feature or at least take you to one, but that doesn't mean they present it in a meaningful way. I've seen some that say "Here is something cool to go see" without providing any additional information. A geocache developer is not under any constraint to provide a certain level of quality in the information about what caused the feature; certainly nothing like what is asked of even the most simplistically presented EarthCache.

Has there been discussion of allowing a different distance for separation between EarthCaches? It is certainly not impossible to find radically different phenomena in close proximity -- a volcanic feature located 50 feet from a glacial feature, for instance. Why shouldn't both types of EarthCaches be allowed to be published in that situation? Can we hope the reviewers will be allowed to make exceptions in these instances?

ETA:
As for vacation EarthCaches, I have no real problems with requiring a local cacher to be listed on the EarthCache submission. We have a vacation EarthCache; I made sure to find a local cacher who would keep me informed if there was a change to the area that would impact the EarthCache access before I even submitted the EarthCache. That's only practical. Roads close for construction, properties are repurposed, state park fees change, etc. You need someone local to check on things in case you start getting odd notes from visitors to the EarthCache.

This post has been edited by Neos2: 28 November 2009 - 09:05 AM

[The Leprechauns]

Neos2, on Nov 28 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

Additionally, there are geocaches that do highlight some geologic feature or at least take you to one, but that doesn't mean they present it in a meaningful way. I've seen some that say "Here is something cool to go see" without providing any additional information. A geocache developer is not under any constraint to provide a certain level of quality in the information about what caused the feature; certainly nothing like what is asked of even the most simplistically presented EarthCache.

There are lame geocaches and there are lame earthcaches. I've seen many geocaches which do a fine job of educating visitors about nearby geological features. I've seen earthcaches that do a poor job, and earthcaches with a tenuous relationship to geology. Perhaps the earthcaches I've bothered to find or study is a bad sample.

Quote

As for vacation EarthCaches, I have no real problems with requiring a local cacher to be listed on the EarthCache submission. We have a vacation EarthCache; I made sure to find a local cacher who would keep me informed if there was a change to the area that would impact the EarthCache access before I even submitted the EarthCache. That's only practical. Roads close for construction, properties are repurposed, state park fees change, etc. You need someone local to check on things in case you start getting odd notes from visitors to the EarthCache.

Thank you for being responsible in making those arrangements. Since the same arrangements would permit the publication of a traditional geocache outside your maintainable distance, I would expect that your method would work for earthcaches too when the listing guidelines are properly applied. I hope that you could keep on doing what you've been doing.

This post has been edited by The Leprechauns: 28 November 2009 - 10:35 AM