«

»

OpenCaching.com: An over-saturation nightmare waiting to happen?

Like many I have been having fun playing with OpenCaching.com today and seeing what it can do. There is lots to like about this site but I also have a nagging feeling that it maybe more problematic than good. I noticed a comment on the new opencaching.com forums that expressed concern over geocaching.com caches being listed on the site and the inability to easily filter these out. As your find count increases it becomes more difficult to remember whether you have found a cache and that will make it very hard to use opencaching.com if functionality in this area is not added.

Perhaps the most concerning thing for me is the ability to completely over saturated an area with geocaches. I uploaded one of my existing geocaching.com caches, A Cross to Bare No More, into opencaching.com. The opencaching.com listing can be seen here. I also created a new cache called Newbie with exactly the same coordinates. The absence of reviewers made me think they must have an automated tool to say this area was taken as their guidelines state caches should not be hidden within 0.1 mile of each other. But it appears they don’t and as a result I now have two listings in exactly the same place.

I can only imagine what problems can be caused because of this. It’s one thing to have different caches on different listing services near each other but to have caches listed in the same service having the same coordinates is quite unacceptable.

15 comments

8 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. SSeegars

    Which makes one wonder why GC.com would open up their data to this or why they would allow cross listing.

    1. GSV

      Remember – you own your own cache listing so can cross-list as much as you want. Owning others’ cache listings for cross-posting? No, I’d say not.

  2. SSeegars

    Which makes one wonder why GC.com would open up their data to this or why they would allow cross listing.

    1. GSV

      Remember – you own your own cache listing so can cross-list as much as you want. Owning others’ cache listings for cross-posting? No, I’d say not.

  3. GSV

    Yep, despite all the individual complaints, there are some VERY good reasons why gc.com has the guidelines and a live person in the loop. Garmin may have good intentions, but 10 years of harsh experience along with similar good intentions (and business goals too it must be said) have shaped Groundspeak’s offering.

  4. GSV

    Yep, despite all the individual complaints, there are some VERY good reasons why gc.com has the guidelines and a live person in the loop. Garmin may have good intentions, but 10 years of harsh experience along with similar good intentions (and business goals too it must be said) have shaped Groundspeak’s offering.

  5. sseegars

    I gotta say that I’ve been through a few reviewers since I started caching in 2003. For the most part I’ve never had a trouble and actually have become friends with three of them. I feel that I will REALLY appreciate them here in the near future.

    Just the fact that you can cross list a cache and then drop another directly in those coordinates is going to be a major problem. We all like to think that geocaching is such a friendly sport but in reality we have the same jerks in our sport that we have outside the sport in the real world. I can already see this “loophole” being used for evil purposes.

    Garmin NEEDS that human component in there if they are serious.

    Reminds me of the line in “A Few Good Men”.

    “Garmin, we live in a world that has caches separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles , and those caches have to be guarded by men and women who volunteer. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Mr. Cacher? They have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for micro under the bridge, and you curse the reviewers. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what they know. That the micros denial of placement, while tragic, probably saved the bomb squad and the local government time and money. And the existence of those reviewers, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves geocaching. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want at that computer, you need them at that computer. They use words like saturation, guidelines, local laws. They use these words as the backbone of a decade watching out for geocaching. You use them as a punchline. They have neither the time nor the inclination to explain themselves to a cacher who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom to list caches in GC.com that $30 a year provides, and then questions the manner in which they provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, otherwise, I suggest you become a reviewer, and give up your time. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”

    Or something like that.

    I love Garmin. I am a loyal Garminite! But they build the machine and do it damned well. I ALWAYS know where I am. I think that this might be a major failure without that human component.

  6. sseegars

    I gotta say that I’ve been through a few reviewers since I started caching in 2003. For the most part I’ve never had a trouble and actually have become friends with three of them. I feel that I will REALLY appreciate them here in the near future.

    Just the fact that you can cross list a cache and then drop another directly in those coordinates is going to be a major problem. We all like to think that geocaching is such a friendly sport but in reality we have the same jerks in our sport that we have outside the sport in the real world. I can already see this “loophole” being used for evil purposes.

    Garmin NEEDS that human component in there if they are serious.

    Reminds me of the line in “A Few Good Men”.

    “Garmin, we live in a world that has caches separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles , and those caches have to be guarded by men and women who volunteer. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Mr. Cacher? They have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for micro under the bridge, and you curse the reviewers. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what they know. That the micros denial of placement, while tragic, probably saved the bomb squad and the local government time and money. And the existence of those reviewers, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves geocaching. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want at that computer, you need them at that computer. They use words like saturation, guidelines, local laws. They use these words as the backbone of a decade watching out for geocaching. You use them as a punchline. They have neither the time nor the inclination to explain themselves to a cacher who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom to list caches in GC.com that $30 a year provides, and then questions the manner in which they provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, otherwise, I suggest you become a reviewer, and give up your time. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”

    Or something like that.

    I love Garmin. I am a loyal Garminite! But they build the machine and do it damned well. I ALWAYS know where I am. I think that this might be a major failure without that human component.

  7. kjwx

    Nicely put, sseegars. You can obviously handle the truth.

  8. kjwx

    Nicely put, sseegars. You can obviously handle the truth.

  9. gggg

    get over yourself crumbly rocks

    1. Cumbyrocks

      Many thanks for your insightful feedback gggg. The maturity and intelligence in your comments is truly inspiring. So much so that I will be taking your advice and getting over myself. Perhaps I could publish your well thought out comment so others could also benefit from it and get over themselves…or me!

      You are a bit of a mystery aren’t you? My suspicious mind believes that gggg is not really your name. I did spot that your email is gg@*****.com so this g thing must be important and got me wondering about what it might stand for. At this point I can only assume gggg stands for Gavin Gimp Garmin Groupie – is that correct?

      Looking forward to your next mature and educational comment!

  10. gggg

    get over yourself crumbly rocks

    1. Cumbyrocks

      Many thanks for your insightful feedback gggg. The maturity and intelligence in your comments is truly inspiring. So much so that I will be taking your advice and getting over myself. Perhaps I could publish your well thought out comment so others could also benefit from it and get over themselves…or me!

      You are a bit of a mystery aren’t you? My suspicious mind believes that gggg is not really your name. I did spot that your email is gg@*****.com so this g thing must be important and got me wondering about what it might stand for. At this point I can only assume gggg stands for Gavin Gimp Garmin Groupie – is that correct?

      Looking forward to your next mature and educational comment!

  11. thebitchycacher

    I just sounded off on this subject in my blog, it did not occur to me that alternative websites such as opencaching.com and terracaching.com are also compounding the problem. good article.

  1. In light of the reviewerless Opencaching.com – An ode to the gc.com reviewers… « It's Not About The Numbers

    […] 8, 2010 tags: A Few Good Men, Cache, Garmin, Geocaching, Groundspeak, Reviewers by Cumbyrocks sseegars made the following comment on my post about the potential over-saturation problem with opencaching.com.  I thought it was so […]

  2. In light of the reviewerless Opencaching.com – An ode to the gc.com reviewers… « It's Not About The Numbers

    […] 8, 2010 tags: A Few Good Men, Cache, Garmin, Geocaching, Groundspeak, Reviewers by Cumbyrocks sseegars made the following comment on my post about the potential over-saturation problem with opencaching.com.  I thought it was so […]

  3. Okay, who narked to opencaching? « It's Not About The Numbers

    […] December 9, 2010 tags: Cache, Garmin, Geocaching, Groundspeak, opencaching.com by Cumbyrocks I blogged yesterday about the potential for over-saturation of caches to occur in opencaching as no reviewer meant I was able to publish two caches with the same coordinates. Now either someone […]

  4. Okay, who narked to opencaching? « It's Not About The Numbers

    […] December 9, 2010 tags: Cache, Garmin, Geocaching, Groundspeak, opencaching.com by Cumbyrocks I blogged yesterday about the potential for over-saturation of caches to occur in opencaching as no reviewer meant I was able to publish two caches with the same coordinates. Now either someone […]

  5. TAG :: Toronto Area Geocachers » Opencaching.com and Reviewers

    […] posted two caches with the same co-ordinates to demonstrate that a site without reviewers would be an oversaturation nightmare. The caches were popped back to “Draft” status by someone, or perhaps the site has a […]

  6. TAG :: Toronto Area Geocachers » Opencaching.com and Reviewers

    […] posted two caches with the same co-ordinates to demonstrate that a site without reviewers would be an oversaturation nightmare. The caches were popped back to “Draft” status by someone, or perhaps the site has a […]

  7. Open for Business « It's Not About The Numbers

    […] * if you discount Cumbyrocks’ test Newbie cache. […]

  8. Open for Business « It's Not About The Numbers

    […] * if you discount Cumbyrocks’ test Newbie cache. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Switch to mobile version