opencaching.com

Renegade Knight · Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 151

Having caches start in an unapproved state creates a few problems.

1) Land owners have none of the assurances that they will be looking for as they seek to either ban geocaching, regulate it, or the rules geocachers themselves are promulgating are satisfactory.

2) The system seems open to people who are petty and vindictive and seek to cause trouble for their fellow cachers.

3) You still end up with approvers who’s role is now to deny caches after they have been placed and open for business.

4) Cache owners now have the larger geocaching community second guessing the cache owners placement. “I think this is private property”, “This cache is too lame to exist”, “I found broken glass the area is dangerous” etc.

5) Where local groups don’t exist or are informal beer and pizza groups there is no real local authority to give the nod to a cache.

You still need people to make decisions but the process is now more cumbersome. The current system of approvers and flagging a problem when and if one should come up (archive this cache) seems both simple and viable. The approvers take orders from HQ and HQ should be controlled by geocacher/members.

How would the proposal being floated make things simpler, satisfy landowners, etc. ? Maybe we are on the same page and I'm missing the tech angle.

CoyoteRed · Joined: 18 Sep 2003 Posts: 220

First, with the tightening of controls elsewhere, there will be a rogue element. Period. If you are looking to control caches then it really isn't necessary to stray away from GC.com.

However, if you are of the mind that you don't like restrictions, then rogue caching is the way to go.

You have to ask yourself which is more important, the agreement between you and the landowner, or the rules of the listing service? Because it's coming down to people not being able to place perfectly viable caches, with landowner permission, because of restrictive rules.

We're not talking about advocating illegal activity. We're talking about free and open caching without being restricted by a 3rd party.

The main trust here at OC.com seems to be for gathering ALL the caches from ALL sources and massaging them the way you want.

Undergound caching is listing your caches independently of ANY listing service.

The problem with a listing service that gathers lists of all caches is it doesn't have control of what is approved and what isn't. It has to assume right off that the cache viable. As time goes by, the cache has to prove itself as a viable cache for that servcice by peer review. Even if the cache doesn't meet the approval of a community, it's still out there--just like many archived caches on GC.com I'm sure.

The paradigm of caching is about to change.

CR

Scout · Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 235

lowracer · Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 26 Location: Austin TEXAS

And if you think about it, this competition to be the first to find actually has the effect of speeding up the informal 'approval' process. For example, you can't place a cache here in Austin without someone logging an FTF within the first couple of hours. People will skip out of work or school to claim bragging rights as FTF.

Caches which have in the past been approved by geocaching.com's remote volunteer approver staff and subsequently discovered to be on forbidden ground (nature preserves) have been marked 'disapproved' by those who got there first.

Those who get there first are usually the high smiley-count diehards who are more zealous about caching, and who are (at least here in Austin) more likely to be upset if someone tries to put a cache in the wrong place , because the diehards fear losing access to public lands.

Policing by the locals will be strong.

Rogue/Wild West caching can and does happen, and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent it. So means need to be put in place to let the LOCAL community police rogue placements.

Renegade Knight · Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 151

When a centralized system fails you remove the approver who is causing the problem and assign another. If geocachers want Virtuals and the approver rejects them all, you have a problem that can be solved.

When this system fails what's the fallback postion?

There are towns where FTF isn't done all that quicky. Remote caches can go a year. How do you ensure that the rules are the same across the nation? Who picks up the slack when the locals just want to find caches and go home? When the local park says "Ok time to move the cache and Joe Geocacher isn't reachable" who are they going to call?

Local makes sence for local parks and even state parks but there are places where there are no local groups, or even caches beyond the guy who places the first one in his neck of the woods.

Is this system workable across the world?

lowracer · Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 26 Location: Austin TEXAS

Howdy R.K.,

First of all before I try to voice an opinion on these issues, it sounds to me like you're arguing that rogue caching should not be done? What I need to make clear is that as long as there is the universal human right to free speech and unrestricted access to ammo cans, caches will be posted independently of any listing service, and without regard to any standards, rules, or laws. Even illegal caches filled with broken glass, knives, and pornography will be placed in national parks!

Given that these types of caches can and will be placed, how can we police them?

Renegade Knight · Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 151

lowracer

The purpose of these forums is to gather ideas from all members to use as a pool of information. In turn all those ideas will provide valuable insight and hopefully some solutions to problems. They will be a resource used when moving forward with both the site design and the organization that will be standing behind it. Someone has to pay the bills and that organization will have a lot of control. The debate here is what kind of control will it be. Right now the locals have very little and we both agree they need more. Some locals are doing the very things that an international geocaching association as I have proposed will be doing on a larger scale. In all probability they will have a thing or two to teach us because they were pioneers. Some of their members will prove to be early leaders in this effort.

I am making a case for one path we could take just as you are making the case for another. The final result will probably not exactly match what either of us have in mind but done right it will be what we both help to build.

BTW Is there a thread we do agree on?

lowracer · Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 26 Location: Austin TEXAS

Hi R.K.,

We definitely agree on many points including the purpose of this forum, and that the end result will likely be nothing exactly like what either of us are talking about.

I am perhaps not the best communicator because I think I still haven't really helped you to understand what I put forward in the presentation I did on Wild West Caching. Look for example at this page:

http://home.austin.rr.com/lowracer/wild-west/Slide3.jpg

This slide is not so much a proposal (and now I do regret the word "proposal" in the title of the slide and am going to change that in the next rev) but a *warning* as to what can happen, what will happen on its own. (note that I say 'yikes!' after the no arbitration or policing line).

The true proposal in this presentation is to show how the local groups can moderate / police this situation:

http://home.austin.rr.com/lowracer/wild-west/Slide8.jpg

Wild west style caching (which includes rogue caches) can/will/is happen(ing) on its own, and the caching community (local and global) will have to rise up to police it to serve our own self interest, namely the uninterrupted continuation of this game.

So rather than debate about how we should not 'do' wild west caching, we need to understand that it can/will happen and how do we police it. That's my point here. I think Scout has taken it a bit further than I had on the policing issue, which is great. Perhaps he can chime in here and help me communicate this.

Given that it happens, what do we do about it? I don't think anyone can prevent it, so I think the 'approval' aspect is akin to shutting the barn door after the horses have already gotten out.

I think discussion of specific cases of cache placement/policing is useful and I welcome the chance to discuss them further.

-mark
aka lowracer

Scout · Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 235

hmarq · Site Admin Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 351

lowracer · Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 26 Location: Austin TEXAS

We agree on a lot of points, but sorry if you think I did open caching a disservice by raising the alarm on what could happen (lawlessness in the wild west) and proposing a means to help 'tame' it. Anyone who actually reads the presentation and ensuing discussions would see that despite being scary, there are means of control.

If I didn't raise the alarm about 'wild west' and 'rogue' caching, someone else would have, or we would have been blindsided by it later.

The issue needs to be addressed because as I have said before, it is happening and will continue to happen whether we want it to or not.

Unless you are going to build a captive model like geocaching.com or navicache.com, you have a wild west situation. If bringing this up is a disservice, so be it.

BTW, what other forums is this being discussed in? I searched geocaching.com, navicache.com, and with google and can't find 'rogue' or 'wild west' caching being discussed anywhere.

hmarq · Site Admin Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 351

Renegade Knight · Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 151

What people percieve as the truth is the truth. Regardless of reality.

hmarq · Site Admin Joined: 15 Sep 2003 Posts: 351

Welcome to damage control ... lets no one get their shorts in a wad over wording ... nothing there is inconsistent with what we're technically talking about here, but yikes we need to make the discussion politically friendly. Damage done is done, let's move forward.

Scout · Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 235