Talk:Geocaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Geocaching article.
  • Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
  • Sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
  • Place new comments after existing ones (within topic sections).
  • Separate topics with a ==Descriptive header==.
This link will start a new topic section.

Contents


Peer review Geocaching has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

[edit] References Needed

There are 2 sections (Appeal and Geocaching as a sport) that I have marked for requiring references. There are many weasel words ("some geocachers", "others", "a small group", etc.) in these sections and absolutely no references to where these opinions are coming from. Both sections are on border of being total POV junk to be deleted.

Also, the Geocaching websites section needs more of the non-U.S. websites listed.

Finally, I would like some opinions on how to better keep this article about "Geocaching" and not about Geocaching.com. Editors of this article need to filter everything they want to say here through a neutral PoV better, because this article should be about the activity and not about any specific website's influence on that activity. ju66l3r 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree on ditching those two sections. They appear to serve no purpose other than to sell geocaching to the reader. ikes 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I vote to keep Appeal because that was exactly what I was looking for when I looked up geocaching, I knew what it was, I wanted to know why people did it. I also suggest removing the reference needed tags. Yes, it uses words like "some" and "others" but those are legitimate words when there is disagreement within a group. As an example, '"some" americans voted for Bush "others" did not, "a small group" is very vocal about the election' is a perfectly valid statement. As to expertise, the opinions are coming from the author who is presumably a geocacher and therefore has the only qualification required to write about why people do it. I actually agree with ikes that some cites would be nice, but I take a less strict view because if I marked everything that really needed it with a "needs citation" tag I'd have marked 90% of the articles in Wikipedia.Jerdwyer 04:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly the reason that references/citations for "some" and "other" (aka weasel words) are necessary. If "some" Americans voted for Bush, then there must be a good reference showing that they did. Provide it. Otherwise, you are exactly right; the reader must presume expertise on behalf of the editor and that presumption could easily be wrong. If 90% of Wikipedia is missing a citation, then so be it...hopefully, by bringing the need to attention, these things will be verified and verifiable by the next person or removed (as there's no basis to find them as fact). WP:V and WP:OR are good places to read up on why you shouldn't just presume the editor is always right. ju66l3r 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bump an old topic. Wanted to check here to make sure it was OK with regular contributers to this article if I go ahead and convert all references to footnote format. Currently, two citation styles are used, (predominately) HTML and also a single footnote. OK to convert to all footnotes? thanks and regards, --guyzero | talk 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be great! Thanks! ju66l3r 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. Go ahead and do it. Val42 05:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, done. Suggestions and corrections are welcome! regards, --guyzero | talk 00:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archival of talk page

I moved all of the pre-September discussion to the archive box. This way we don't have wierd conversations coming up randomly from the past where a number of the contributions were unsigned/timestamped. ju66l3r 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vigorous defluffing

Links area was defluffed again. In the process I've found that there are articles for Paperless Geocaching and Geocaching software, so there's no need for most of the software links that were here before (and those pages may need their own defluffing/merging). ju66l3r 20:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity of Websites

The information stating "xxx is the most popular", "xxx is the second most popular" etc - who is justifying this. OK geocaching.com is the biggest, but does that make it the most popular, or the best? And what statistics are there for the positions of the next two? Sounds like somebody's making stuff up, again from a US-centric POV. Cached 07:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree to a degree. Geocaching.com is the largest and best known. That's hardly disagreeable considering its geocache data quantity (largest), net traffic and linkage (which can be found on alexa, google, etc.). It's also larger than most regional websites outside the U.S. As for who would be considered "second" or "third", I can agree in disagreement and US-centricity there. The section you're talking about has bothered me for some time, but I've been a bit too busy to make sure it's worded right instead of just not worded...which would be preferable (better to edit/replace than simply delete). ju66l3r 18:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes it would by the very definition of "popular." By the way, learn how to punctuate and don't use rhetorical questions if you want anyone to take your opinions seriously. Oh yeah people are just making things up just so you have something to talk about on here. We all have that kind of time to spend editing Wikipedia articles so we can be "US-centric," so we just invent statistics. You really hit the nail on the head there, buster. User:12.41.171.140 03:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL andWP:TALK. cheers, --guyzero | talk 18:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Striking the Off-site "History" Page

I contest the accuracy of the offsite "History" page linked from the geocaching topic. Since this Wikipedia entry is meant to be an accurate page which already includes a history, the biased and less than factual link off this site to a "history" page should be stricken from the entry.

I do not suggest that it be replaced with the history page located at http://www.geocaching.com/about/history.aspx but that it should be removed entirely. For Wikipedia to be a useful site the bias should be left at the door.

I also want to ensure that there is a record on the entry stating that the link should be stricken. I'm well aware there are biased (re)writers of this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.251.6.105 (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the link should be removed and was bold and removed it. The simple fact is that the link was a personal webpage and therefore is a "link to be avoided" per the external link policy. While parts of the link were well-sourced, there were also many conclusions or inferences drawn that were not sourced making it fail the reliable source policy as a primary source with unsourced claims. If someone wants to reinsert the link, I ask that they discuss it here first. I do take exception though to the previous editor's lack of good faith on the part of the "(re)writers" that are claimed to be biased. I don't see any evidence to make bad faith assumptions about any of the editors of this article. ju66l3r 05:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geocaching Terminology

Wouldn't it help to have a geocaching terminology page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The SOAD Fan (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a list of definitions or dictionary. If you are thinking about logbook acronyms, then you're going to have to present them in a way that is not just a list like:
  1. TNLN - Took Nothing, Left Nothing
  2. TFTC - Thanks For The Cache
  3. etc...

There could be a section within this article, possibly. It would have to rely more on describing the fact that these acronyms and initialisms exist and less on being a dictionary of terms. There is already a link to the GeoLex at the bottom of the article. ju66l3r 00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are so many variants of logbook acronyms that it warrants even its own page. DNF TN LN SL TFTC TFTH.. that's about all I can think of ... hardly such a broad vocabulary that it's worth mentioning. Is it really up to the scope of a wiki anyways to describe every last mechanical detail or local nuance specific to the active participation in a sport or is it sufficient to simply describe its commonly practiced or official general principles? Where do you draw the line between adequately detailed and bloated with too much information? It seems rather subjective to me. Since there is a link to GeoLex, I feel that the Geocaching wiki shouldn't reinvent the wheel. I guess for me the ultimate decider between enough and too much could be decided by the answer to the question, "Is this information enough to give a stranger to the sport a good feel for what the sport is all about or does stray too much into becoming a 'how to' article?"-Matt 07:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trigpointing vs Benchmarking

If one is in the main article, then both should be. Just because Benchmarking is on Groundspeak does not in any way devalue the equivalent Trigpointing. --PopUpPirate 12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Current edit reflects this, apologies --PopUpPirate 12:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I chose to also remove benchmarking. Neither of these things are exactly geocaching and so they are better suited to their own article(s). The virtual cache moniker in the cache type variants could potentially have quite a bit more than just the earthcache sub-type or none at all. I'd be willing to hear thoughts on the matter. Since multiple websites do host virtual caches I think it's important that it remain in the text as a variant, even though it doesn't fit the definition of geocaching really. But equally so, I'm not sure that maintaining every possible sub-type of virtuals is necessarily a good option either. ju66l3r 17:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that the geocache.com website features benchmarking, I don't feel that's appropriate to list as a sub-type of geocaching because there is no "CACHE" involved in it. Geocaching.com also features links from cache pages to "nearby waymarks" and waymarking is no more or less related to caching than benchmarking (note that waymarking.com and geocaching.com are both sites being owned by the Groundspeak company of Seattle, WA). On the subject of Trigpointing vs. Benchmarking, it would seem Benchmarking would generically also include Trigpointing as a subtype of benchmarking (at least in the US) because both trigonometry and other types of survey markers including USGS are all included under the moniker of benchmarking. I have found several different types of marks personally and all of them were registered in the geocaching website under benchmarking. But again I would keep benchmarking, trigpointing, waymarking, letterboxing, degree confluencing, book crossing, and all other variations of this internet tracked public finding type game out of the geocaching discussion because they don't involve caches.. All such non-caching sports can all have their own dedicated wikis.. and should if they don't.. I would support listing some of them as "related" links, but that's it. Just my $.02-Matt 07:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery/Puzzle cache variation text

An editor has recently wanted to add a very specific location as an example of a mystery/puzzle cache. Unfortunately, there's nothing contextual about the coordinates or text added and so it seems ill-placed and somewhat like they are attempting to highlight their own cache (or planned cache). Neither the text nor coordinates fits the general description of the cache variations and I have even gone so far as to modify their original edit to give a fuller description of the variation than was there before. Any other discussion on this? I'd like to hear from the editor, but they have not yet responded on their talk page, mine, or this page as I suggested on their talk page. ju66l3r 21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My feeling on this is that highlighting any specific cache is not useful for the purposes of describing the sport, and like you said Ju66ler, it smacks of favoritism or could appear to be inappropriate use of the wiki to do self promote even if that isn't the case. An example can be done generically by simply describing the contents of an average cache page similar to this: "GPS coodinates which lead to the general or specific location. Name for the cache which can reflect its puzzle question, theme, a hint in finding, or a point about the surrounding, a text description which can contain clues or stories about the location or cache, supporting information about the size and difficulty of the cache, terrain hazards or links to related or nearby caches and lastly a section reserved just for hints." etc etc.. no specific cache needs to be cited and therefore, no favoritism can be inferred nor conferred. Anyone wanting to see an actual cache will probably be intelligent enough to navigate their own way to a geocaching.com related website.-Matt 07:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geographing link

What appears to be a single editor (likely a WP:COI problem) has been attempting to insert a link to a service called "Geographing". This is essentially a "virtual cache" only listing service of new design for an old concept. The link itself fails the external link policy (namely it is only used to promote this new website, probably a conflict of interest by the submitter, and finally WP is not a repository of links and the EL section is long enough as it is without every Johnny-come-lately listing service being added). I do not see how this link furthers the knowledge of "what is geocaching". Please discuss the issue here instead of continually adding the link to the article ad nauseum. Thanks. ju66l3r 11:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though that only ju66l3r has a problem with the link. I thought it was a very interesting take on geocaching with a lot of interesting content. Are you applying the same standard to all links? A quick check does not seem as though you are. Thank you. Faust13 20:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Simply because I am the only one to quickly remove it does not mean that I am the only one who feels it should be removed. It is also not appropriate per WP:EL and you have not shown it to be otherwise. Other links presence is not precedent. Maybe I just haven't gotten to those links yet. ju66l3r 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to geocaching.fi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.147.209 (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Variations

"geographing is not a geocache type" -15:01, 5 June 2007 Ju66l3r Says who? You? Stop being a Wikipedia bully, this is a variation in every sense of the word. I don't understand your crusade against geographing. Based on your edits, you have displayed a strong bias. Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia, not your personal take on a topic. --faust13| talk 16:12, 05 June 2007 (UTC)

First, new talk sections go to the bottom. Secondly, Assume Good Faith. I have no crusade against geographing. If it's a pertinent topic for description on Wikipedia, then it should probably have its own page at Geographing with a link in the See Also section of this page (I think you'd find that the concept is not notable and the page would be quickly deleted). It is, at best, essentially the same as the virtual cache variation. To that point, virtual caches are already described in this article and this article is not here to advertise everyone's favorite website/discussion group. Most of the rhetoric being used to describe geographing in this article depends on the idea that they serve a better purpose by reducing environmental impact, etc. That is not neutral and any neutral definition of "geographing" (go to a pair of coordinates and take a picture) is served by the generic virtual cache variation that's already in place. If you disagree, there are ways of resolving disputes that do not include continually reverting your text back into the article (this is actually against policy if done often enough). We could ask a third opinion if other people interested in this article do not speak up here in a timely fashion. Let's leave the discussion here and wait to see if there are other opinions for consensus? ju66l3r 08:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
What I found interesting in this edit war, was that the text inserted actually said "it was similar to geocaching" which to me certainly implied it was trying to be different. From a "what is it perspective" I don't think it is geocaching because it's a totally different "feel". Many people don't think virtuals are geocaching and would probably like them to be removed (and maybe they should be moved elsewhere; I'll refrain from that topic at the moment). I do love the idea of geographing, and would very much like to see it get it's own page and referenced in the see also section. I'm not sure how to define what should go into the geocaching sub-type list and not. My best guess is that if it has it's own listing service and is independent (like geographing) it shouldn't go into the sub-type list. If it is a type of cache listed in multiple geocaching listing services (like virtuals are) then it makes sense to be a sub-type itself. Since that's the best criteria I can think of, I would agree that geographing probably needs it's own definition somewhere and linked in the see also section. Otherwise we end up with every GPS game known to man being a type of "geocaching". Cause then geodining would probably qualify too... Hardaker 18:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
faust, consider creating a geographing article in wikipedia and I would support it being See Also linked from this article. I believe providing a description for geographing within the geocaching article would set the precedent for any gps-related activity to have a section here, which detracts from providing a solid article on geocaching itself. As it is, the list of the different types of geocaches is already too heavy for the article and should probably be spun off into its own article, Types of Geocaches(?)
By the way, after a bit of searching before responding to this thread, I found that Dave Ulmer, one of the creators of geocaching, was also involved with the creation of geographing [1] .. regards, --guyzero | talk 20:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

Paperless geocaching seems like such a minor detail of geocaching that I think it would make perfect sense to merge it into this article. Dave Foster 03:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - merge it Kabads 10:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kabads (talk • contribs).
Agree. Jjasi 14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree. — Val42 03:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Dave Foster 23:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geocaching is a "nerdy" outdoor treasure-hunting game

I'm going to delete the word nerdy from the first sentense as it seems slightly unnessecery. The SOAD Fan 11:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

My mentor in my new job is a geocacher, presumably having picked it up from his father-in-law. It sounds very interesting, I'd like to try it too. But I don't have any GPS equipment. Do I need it, or can I rely on Google Maps coordinates in large cities? JIP | Talk 18:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Many many people start out finding a few without a GPS. There have been some people that have found quite a few without one. I know there was one that had found over 800 without a GPS at all; so yes it can definitely be done. Generally, of course, it can be harder but it's very possible. Hardaker 20:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Countries

Regarding the introductory quote that states, "placed in 222 countries around the world." I believe that there are only 192 United Nations recognized countries with the most recent additions of Montenegro (2006) and East Timor (2002). This being said the UN does not recognize all countries as member-states, for instance Switzerland did not join until 2002 and Taiwan, Western Sahara and Palestine are still not officially recognized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_member_states 98.203.214.158 (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the list of "countries" that are listed on Geocaching.com:
United States, Afghanistan, Aland Islands, Albania, Algeria, American Samoa, Andorra, Angola, Anguilla, Anguilla, Antarctica, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bonaire, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bouvet Island, Brazil, British Indian Ocean Territories, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Burxina, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Cayman Islands, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Curacao, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Falkland Islands, Faroe Islands, Fiji, Finland, France, French Guiana, French Polynesia, French Southern Territories, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Gibraltar, Greece, Greenland, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guam, Guatemala, Guernsey, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Heard Island And Mcdonald Islands, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jersey, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Martinique, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldovia, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Montserrat, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, Nevis and St Kitts, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, Norfolk Island, North Korea, Northern Mariana Islands, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, People Den Rep Yemen, Peru, Philippines, Pitcairn Islands, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Reunion, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Georgia and Sandwich Islands, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, St Barthelemy, St Eustatius, St Kitts, St Marten, St Pierre Miquelon, St Vince Grenadines, Sudan, Suriname, Svalbard and Jan Mayen, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tokelau, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Unknown, Uruguay, US Minor Outlying Islands, US Virgin Islands, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vatican City State, Venezuela, Vietnam, Wallis And Futuna Islands, Western Sahara, Yemen, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
I extracted this directly from their search page. I used an automated method to count the number of lines in the extracted list and came up with 257 entries. One was "unknown", and others aren't otherwise recognized countries, like "Falkland Islands", "Svalbard and Jan Mayen" and "Antarctica". This list of "countries" is probably where the 222 number originally came from. I know that they used to list this statistic on Geocaching.com, but I can't find it now so I've modified it. — Val42 (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Dave Ulmer

The article on Dave Ulmer, after some discussion at WP Oregon, was removed and changed to a redirect to this article, mainly due to lack of reliable sources on Ulmer. Reasons are more clearly set forth on Talk:Dave Ulmer.

If anyone objects to this move, feel free to revert and give reasons at the talk page there.

Thanks,

--EngineerScotty (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bomb

Geocaches have been blown up, just look at: This google news search. Trying to find a non-subscription one with an active link. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Geocaching

Is there a Wikiproject for Geocaching? Zef (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but is the scope really large enough for a WikiProject? As it stands, the only articles of relevance to it would be a small subset of those in Category:Outdoor locating games (I guess just 5-10 in total). Maybe a task force would be more appropriate, or a wikiproject with a wider scope. --David Edgar (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I could not find one. Just wondering. Zef (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There would be geocaching, geocoin, travel bug, Benchmarking (geolocating) and perhaps a few more. This wouldn't be enough for a project, but they should all be in the suggested category. I don't know why you'd want to create a project for these few articles. — Val42 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)