Garmin creates Geocaching website and database

[Team_Pink]

Please forgive if this is old news:

http://www.opencaching.com/

[idratherbehiking]

I saw this a couple of days ago and looked it over a little. I guess the big question is WHY???? I don't think that any other site will ever be able to compete with the original so why waste the time and resources. I'll watch it for a while and see how things progress.

[Team_Pink]

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.

http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/

[Gaddiel]

I gave it a look, but there were no caches listed in Arkansas. Not very useful for me.

[OldRiverRunner]

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.

[kcackler]

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...

[captaincooder]

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.

[kcackler]

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.

[idratherbehiking]

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.

[TnT]

In addition to garmin's site: opencaching.com, there is also another new site with a very similar URL: opencaching.us

[captaincooder]

The folks at opencaching.us are peeved at Garmin for stealing their name.

IRBH--I've got a few to publish on the new site. I'm experimenting as well. These will be new caches that have been rejected or cannot be published on GC.com. I'm curious if they'll get hits.

And Kevin--I appreciate the proximity rule. Even I would try to not go overboard. For example, I thought about submitting a cache for publication on OC, but thought, "No, that's too close to this cache here" even though it's a good hiding spot. And I have been sharply stung by finding the wrong cache before, so I know firsthand how it hurts. One thing the new cache listing site has going for it is that you can rate caches. If it is at a bad location, I imagine the CO will hear about it.

[TnT]

The folks at opencaching.us are peeved at Garmin for stealing their name.
.

I looked on whois.net and found that Garmin registered opencaching.com in September 2003.

Opencaching.us was registered by a Thomas Winegard in July 2010.

So, the folks at opencaching.us maybe should have done their homework. Having said that, I think the .us site has a better chance of surviving than Garmin does. .us offers more and varied cache types, such as virtuals, moving caches and guestbook caches that garmin nor groundspeak don't offer.

Hopefully, the community will be able to police itself so that inappropriate caches don't get placed. Competition is a good thing.

Just this week, all the stats sites seem to have prompted groundspeak to add stats to our profiles. Community pressure over the past few years (along with Garmin's plans for their listing site) may have prompted groundspeak to add the "favorites" plan unveiled yesterday. I'm sure we'll see more things that we've been asking for (virtuals?) added back to gc.com due to this increased competition.

[gingerose]

Although I have not checked this out. I received an email from groundspeak the other day saying that premium members will be able to rate caches that they have found. And not to long ago, I read that Groundspeak was working on bringing virtuals back. I can see this becoming confusing when it comes to trackables.

[captaincooder]

Yes, GR, you are correct. For every ten cache finds, we are now awarded a "Favorite" point. You can favorite (verb) a cache and even sort caches according to their accumulated favorite points. I'm not sure if you can give more than one point to a cache, nor if you can unfavorite a cache to reclaim the point to award to another cache.

[MathSeeker]

Yes, GR, you are correct. For every ten cache finds, we are now awarded a "Favorite" point. You can favorite (verb) a cache and even sort caches according to their accumulated favorite points. I'm not sure if you can give more than one point to a cache, nor if you can unfavorite a cache to reclaim the point to award to another cache.

Yes, you can remove a cache from your favorites and you do get the point back to use elsewhere. You can only award one point per cache for favorite.
Under the Lists tab on your profile page is a list of the caches that you have marked as favorites.

On the cache page you can click on the total favorite vote icon and it will show you who all has marked the cache as a favorite.

On your profile page there is also a tab for statistics now.

[Ashallond]

The favorite points are pretty neat. I really wish they had done 1 point for every 25 or so caches....as it is I have so many points (as many of us do0 that I don't think I'll ever use them all.

The stats page is not formatted very well, there wil be much tweaking on that form them for a while. I'll stick with GSAK for a while.

The forum..... that change is terrible. everyone keeps saying it's just cosmetic, but that cosmetic change has rally annoyed a bunch of people. I won't even get into their feedback method now...it's like they were trying to hide things.

[OldRiverRunner]

So .... to get this thread back on topic, is anyone there actually using the Garmin geocaching website? Or will it die a slow death like Terracaching?

[Jffok]

I have looked at it but will not use it. I think geocaching.com is making a good effort to update and upgrade their site and give people things they want. I figure I can support their efforts and stay with them.

[captaincooder]

I thought I might hide a few on oc.com, but I'm too busy conspiring to hide some cooler ones on gc.com. Right now, as before, the only point of it was the leftover bin or axe to grind from gc.com as far as I can tell. Again, I don't see the point of the redundant publications.

[SJClimber]

Got a new Garmin. In the education process, went to their website and agree, this is redundant almost useless.

Oh, something about the new GPS. Garmin with previous models set the default "NF" as a treasure chest and "F" as the open chest. Now they have an ammo can and open chest. Wonder why they don't stick with one convention?? Ammo can, open ammo can (or ammo w/ a "X"), chest and open chest??? Wrote GSAK, Garmin will not allow them to mess with the geocache icons, only waypoint icons..