Please forgive if this is old news:
Please forgive if this is old news:
Competition is always a good thing for the consumer. I like the import feature although I have yet to try it out.
Not having to pay for pocket queries is a good thing and looks like 5000 cache queries are possible.
Geocaching.com was not the original and was a little controversial when it started due to becoming commericalized.
I gave it a look, but there were no caches listed in Arkansas. Not very useful for me.
I get my directions from above.
View my profile
I'm curious about what screening / review caches posted on this website receive, if any. After Gaddiel's post, I took a look at the website and noticed that it had several listed for the Jonesboro area. I just checked one or two and noticed an "Off My Rocker" series cache. These are no longer allowed by Cracker Barrel's corporate office and local managers don't have the authority to allow the caches. The contact name listed in the cache description is bogus. In my role as reviewer for Geocaching.com, I contacted Cracker Barrel's corporate office a few months back when someone submitted a Rocker series cache for somewhere in western Arkansas. They had no record of the person listed in the description being an employee!
So, my point is this. An alternative website for geocaches is fine, but it has the potential for giving geocaching a bad name if the hides do not get some sort of scrutiny before going public to ensure they do not violate some restrictions or permission issues. For example, if someone starts hiding geocaches in the national forests or state parks in Arkansas without first getting permits, those locations may be closed completely to geocaching in the future due to violation of their rules and policies. This is something that we as geocachers need to police on our own. We need to hold each other accountable for following the rules.
"Wildness is a necessity." -- John Muir
"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." – briansnat
My concern is more about cache saturation than anything. Does the site have a minimum distance guideline for caches in its database? As well, what is going to stop someone from posting a cache on that site that they cannot post on GC.com due to proximity to another cache? I feel like we're going to have a GC.com cache and an OC.com cache sitting on top of one another....
I LOVE that they have an API, though. I still don't understand why groundspeak doesn't offer one. I could do so many cool things with their API that are otherwise impossible or difficult to do without one. Maybe groundspeak will see that feature and introduce one of their own? Doubtful...
I had checked on this website weeks ago before it was active. Now that it is active, I am confused. All of the caches listed in Arkansas are nothing more than duplicates from GC.com! What's the point?
ORR, as you may have heard last week on the Podcacher interview with Jake Jacobson of Garmin, there is a vague review process, but it sounds centralized and formative. Of course, if all that will be published are just redundants from GC.com, then I guess we've got nothing to worry about.
And Kevin...saturation is precisely the issue. Groundspeak rules are too strict regarding cache saturation, and I welcome another website, so we can increase the amount of caches in the area, giving some of the newer cachers a chance to place some! In my opinion, 0.1 mi between caches is arbitrary and legalistic. I feel like 125-150 yards between caches is appropriate. Although it is possible, I doubt that you're going to find many caches "on top of" other caches (although there's always the single rotten apple that ruins the bunch.) With that said, if OC is just GC with different colors, it will die a rapid death.
Chris - I'm in full agreement. 528' is FAR too wide a distance, in my unexperienced opinion. Trying to get large caches that far apart in the woods at Martian Rock was ridiculously hard to do.
Now - I agree that having caches 528' apart is a little bit over the top. BUT, there does need to be some distance between caches, or we'll all be spending our afternoons signing logs at the Wal-Mart parking lot. My concern is (was) that caches would start being placed on OC without checking the distance from caches listed at GC. If the site were to take off, that could present a major problem, I think.
But I don't have all that much hope for the new site. It's pretty, but I don't see it lasting.
I checked out the site after it was first announced and after reading some of the questions posted here and on some other sites I decided to just publish a couple of mine.
The main reason was just to see what kind of interest the site is going to get. So far no one has logged either of mine as found even though I know there are lots of people that could log it as a find having found it in the past. That tells me that the site is not getting much interest.
The other reason was to see what kind of review process there was in place. When I posted them they were published almost instantly which tells me there is no kind of review process at all.
Maybe as more caches that are not on GC.com get published a little interest may be generated but I still feel like a lot of others that this new site will simply die off just as the others over the years have done.
In addition to garmin's site: opencaching.com, there is also another new site with a very similar URL: opencaching.us