June 21, 2013 at 4:08 pm #2242
I am not registered with them but you can look anyway, Andrew_DNPA has 9 out went live yesterday 20th June the cache page says: Geocache placed by Dartmoor National Park Authority as part of the Active Summer exhibition at Princetown Visitor Centre.
I doubt it will catch on the other opencaching never did, shame really as they do not have reviewers!June 22, 2013 at 6:35 am #2243
opencaching.com does have reviewers – if you submit (and I have quite a few on there), there is a period of submission where your cache is peer reviewed, and if no negatives are posted it will be approved.
An interesting system.
1.Somebody with a grudge could consistently blackmark your caches.
2. Nobody uses it.
Of the caches I’ve had on there for over a year, I’ve had 3 or 4 finds. I put a cache out by Venford about 8 months ago and listed only there which has not yet had a single attempt.
I’m guessing DNPA have had GPSr’s donated by Garmin on the provision they place and promote caches much as the National Trust have done for a few years now.
I see nothing bad about doing this, and much good.June 22, 2013 at 10:21 am #2244The Hamian ExplorersParticipant
It also means that the DNPA are actively PRO-caching, so they may have something to say about the ban themselves!June 22, 2013 at 3:22 pm #2245
Just as a follow up to my previous post – the day after I mention my only-listed-on-opencaching.com cache has not been found, Plymbridge Runner finds it. Coincidence!
FTF after nine months for something a quarter of a mile from a car park. Bit different! Anyway, off-topic now.June 22, 2013 at 10:23 pm #2254AnonymousInactive
Certainly no coincidence, Dartymoor highlighted the cache in a previous post; I visited Opencaching for the first time this morning and went out to find the cache in question. After a very short walk cache was found. As I have indicated in my log for that cache and my email to Dartymoor, I was not the first to find this cache, a previous visitor has written in pencil “Hello nice people, what is this”. I feel for sure that someone has just stumbled across the cache, and fortunately just added the remark and left it in place, but what if it was far more sinister than that simple explanation.
I have replaced this cache as best I could, but at least half of the tree that it is in is rotten and will blow down in strong winds.June 23, 2013 at 5:36 am #2257
Thanks for clearing that up, PR!
I agree the opencaching.com site is interesting, and good that they’ve not just copied either .org.uk or geocaching.com and some things are much easier (getting a gpx), but poking further you realise a lot of the deeper stuff isn’t there. I found it difficult to contact you through the site, for example – and ended up going to geocaching.com!
Garmin have certainly pushed it hard, and upgraded basecamp and many GPS’s to accomodate them. Opencaching caches appear differently on my Oregons – showing lots of different ratings, including one called “Awesomeness”… (Icky americanisms!)
But it’s a worthy site and one day there may be more users. I certainly keep an eye.June 23, 2013 at 9:51 am #2258findermanParticipant
My opinion of open caching is that it has jumped on the bandwagon just like munzee. Geocaching is successful because it is beyond just finding the box it’s the whole experience.
It’s about reading the logs before you visit. Writing your log after you visit. Uploading a photo. Finding a TB. Comparing stats. Checking visitor numbers. Geocaching is global. I know I could visit a cache in most of the worlds travel destinations. Can the same be said for open caching?
I will stay with geocaching because it gives me everything I need. It is a well oiled machine.
Why have blue nun when you can have champagne?June 23, 2013 at 1:16 pm #2259JaughanParticipant
I didn’t know about the opencaching.com site but all of these small sites suffer from the same problem- lack of critical mass. Too few caches, too few cachers, too little resources, too little anything. At least the opencaching.com seems to have some resources. But I am not at all sure I could cope with a caching ranking system which includes “awesomeness”. For me the list is a major thing but if I start dipping in and out of various sites the list goes to pot.June 23, 2013 at 1:33 pm #2260
For the time being at least it is probably best to work together to make geocaching.com work better for everybody. I think all would agree that they have the best web site and functionality, and certainly the best critical mass by a very long way, although many would disagree with some of their policies and methods.
However, history proves that nothing is for ever – who would have dreamt that the IBM of the 60s and 70s would lose its way or Microsoft of the 80s and 90s a similar fate. And even Google is beginning to show a few cracks now!
Unfortunately these changes seem to be measured in decades and we are probably hoping for something quicker 🙂June 23, 2013 at 1:59 pm #2261
Is opencaching free? I know geocaching.com is if you don’t go premium, but I never really understood why we should pay for the privilege of using their website.
It wouldn’t make a lot of sense in using OC I guess, as there is simply not enough people on there to make it work. Also, would OC be so quick to ban geocaches and make stupid rules? Or are they subject by the same powers that be?June 23, 2013 at 3:45 pm #2262
Don’t forget the other opencaching this has been going for years, sadly not supported. http://www.opencaching.org.uk/
I have several on this site which will be removed when I get around to it due to lack of visitors.June 23, 2013 at 7:42 pm #2263
Well my first OpenCaching.com cache and a FTF 🙂
I heard about this new cache when I phoned DNPA on Friday and I thought I would wander down to Postbridge to find it.
However, a very disappointing hide, given that this is the DNPA. It’s not really in a dry stone wall, but under a beautiful Beech hedge/wall, the typical Dartmoor type. Decades of moss everywhere, both on the trees and the wall. I know BB wouldn’t approve and I would agree.
I have left a log asking for everybody to be careful and will send Andrew a tactful message tomorrow as we need him on side for the MoD problems, but I have to say a bit disappointing. If this was a geocaching. com cache the area would look a lot different by now 🙁
To log a find on OpenCaching.com is very interesting. You give your idea on Terrain, Difficulty, Awesomeness!!! and Size and what you say affect the ratings of the cache. So you end up with an average – what a great idea.June 23, 2013 at 8:34 pm #2264AnonymousInactive
There are only 1711 caches listed in the UK on the opencaching site. It could be said that this site is best for those that really do not care about numbers. If you want to find 10000’s then stick with geocaching.com. If you want an enjoyable walk while picking up just one or two caches then stick with opencaching.June 24, 2013 at 5:25 am #2268
Or do what I do, load both on my gps. And those from opencaching.org.uk (NOT the same).
You don’t have to choose.June 26, 2013 at 2:23 pm #2275muddypuddlesParticipant
I didn’t know about the OC.com site before this thread came out, but now I’ve registered with them and had a chance to look around I have to say I’m quite impressed. There are several factors which in my mind make it score over the GC.com site:
1. It weakens GC.com’s monopoly
2. You can import your finds from other caching sites, so you have a cumulative find count
3. It’s decentralised (one of its strongest points) and puts control back in the hands of the cachers and cache owners, getting rid of a lot of redundant bureaucracy and interference by the listing site
4. It allows the placement of virtuals
5. It provides several methods of visit-verification, so no more grumbling about whether a logged find is legitimate or not
6. Visitor feedback should enable cache quality to be clearly visible (rather than using “favorite points”, which are a bit of a blunt instrument) and may act as a deterent to the placement of poor caches.
7. Potential caches are peer reviewed, and if reviewers are local, I would expect them to be more sympathetic to the needs of the local caching community than the current GC reviewer system is.
8. It’s free!
One downside is that the website is not so slick, but if the site becomes more used, then further investment by the site owners may follow.
Another problem is that the cumulative find count is not “live”; you have to create a pocket query, download it, then upload it to the OC site. I’m sure this can be improved, but it is cumbersome at the moment.
So, not bad overall. The problem about critical mass is still the big one here, but unless we populate the site, that’s not going to change. With this in mind, I intend to duplicate all of my caches on OC.com, with visit verification turned on (just to add to the fun). Others may wish to do the same?June 26, 2013 at 4:57 pm #2276
I think I’ll be signing up as well and seeing what it’s all about…June 26, 2013 at 6:42 pm #2277reb10Participant
I have just registered and logged two of my finds, will have to check for more that i can log. I guess that the hides and finds will start to go up now thanks to the publicity on here.June 26, 2013 at 7:05 pm #2278
Just put all mine up on there, I think it actually looks nicer as well!June 26, 2013 at 9:28 pm #2280
Here’s an interesting thought:
If the MoD ban becomes permanent AND we can continue to place caches on OpenCaching.com then we could add a link from one site to the other. Caches could still then be found & logged on Groundspeak even though they were archived! Obviously we couldn’t get any new ones on Groundspeak. However, it would be difficult to publicise this to anybody coming to Dartmoor who wasn’t aware of the ban.
The other question is how many locals would bother with a trail of OpenCaching caches, if they couldn’t log them on Groundspeak and add them to “their numbers”???July 8, 2013 at 3:51 pm #2304
I must say I’ve just found a downside of the peer review system on opencaching – someone just claimed that there was no right of way to my cache on Fur Tor??? Only about 48000 hectares of it!!!
And that “who would want to go caching on a firing range”?? If you don’t know Dartmoor why are you reviewing my cache! Dartmoor is a beautiful, remote wilderness not a firing range!
I think we need some more local reviewers, and not keyboard warriors from Lancashire…July 8, 2013 at 10:15 pm #2306
I’ve now added my review, but it doesn’t seem to count for very much. I guess you need to have reviewed many to get more weight.
Everybody should log on and add their review in favour of this cache.
But I agree, review by ignorant peers is useless unless you can get all your mates to help!July 8, 2013 at 11:19 pm #2307
I agree with a review by cachers, but this system is simply unworkable, people can and are saying no to caches “just because they can”, never mind the people who are ignorant of Dartmoor/can’t read who I probably rubbed up the wrong way! Oh well…July 9, 2013 at 10:38 am #2309muddypuddlesParticipant
Well I can’t even get my votes registered at all! Since posting my glowing review of OC.com, I have had a chance to read a lot of the forums attached to it, and all is not rosy in the garden after all. I think the basic approach that the site takes is good, but I am disappointed about how the peer review process works. I’m not always thrilled about how GC reviewers work either, but the only other alternative is a total free-for-all, and I can’t see that working to anyone’s satisfaction either. Maybe it is a case of the devil you know after all.July 9, 2013 at 11:00 am #2310
Indeed. I think there needs to be a mix of these two extremes in an ideal world, where power is given to the people to review caches, but only those with some experience and local to the area, with some ability to ban those that abuse the system. Rather than an absolute all powerful reviewer who isn’t local or bored people from America thinking it’s funny to negatively vote!July 9, 2013 at 11:04 am #2311
Well, there’s always Lord Darcy 🙂
I think the real problem is GAGB and not the UK Reviewers. It’s so annoying that they seem to be able to overrule the agreements that are already in place (like the DNPA guidelines).
I wrote this earlier but nobody replied:
The other question is how many locals would bother with a trail of OpenCaching caches, if they couldn’t log them on Groundspeak and add them to “their numbers”???July 9, 2013 at 11:11 am #2312
I have wondered about Lord Darcy, he has been very active in the past with opencaching.org are very reasonable to deal with.July 9, 2013 at 11:17 am #2313
But the same question arises – How many locals would bother with a trail of OpenCaching caches, if they couldn’t log them on Groundspeak and add them to “their numbers”???
It doesn’t matter whether its oc.com or oc.org.uk – you can’t count them on Groundspeak.July 9, 2013 at 12:42 pm #2315
I think the Dartmoor cachers would, but I’m guessing it wouldn’t appeal to most. It’s a shame there aren’t more Dartmoor cachers, or we could set up something like the letterboxers and maybe use opencaching. Who knows!
Yes, GAGB seem to be the problem, but also the reviewers obedience to them – the reviewers must know certain things such as Dartmoor not belonging to the MoD, but they turn a blind eye to it and just go by what GAGB said. Are any of the reviewers high up in GAGB by any chance?July 9, 2013 at 12:56 pm #2317reb10Participant
I started to log some finds on Opencaching but then thought to myself why bother if i have already logged them on Groundspeak geocaching. It just seemed a waste of time logging them on both sites.
And i think that although some people are not happy with Groundspeak at the moment they will not move to OC, better the devil you know.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.