This topic contains 13 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
I get a magazine called ORION, and just read a short bit on the science of looking at lichens to help gauge pollutants. They talked in some detail about lichen growth on gravestones, because of course there is a starting date from which to work.
Now, I realize this is plants…..is this too far off from true geology to work up for an earthcache? I know I can just ask geoaware, but thought I’d poll everyone here first. I see this as somewhat related, as the existence of pollution is a type of weathering brought on by our modern world. I guess I was thinking of sharing some of the science in the write up, then asking people to measure the size of the lichen growth and make some conclusions on the pollutant rate and what might have led to it, based on location.
This is the reply I received from geoaware a couple of weeks ago:
Eric,
Our requirement is that the primary focus of an EarthCache be earth science. At present, this includes geological topics, but not environmental, ecological, biological, botanical, historical, cultural, etc.Does this answer your question sufficiently?
Geoaware
This response shot a hole through my idea, that’s for sure.
This question actual strikes a chord with one of my “beefs” on Earthcaches…
From Earthcache(dot)org:
“An EarthCache site is a special place that people can visit to learn about a unique geoscience feature or aspect of our Earth. “Further – The first Guideline:
“EarthCache sites must provide Earth science lessons.”From Wikipedia(dot)org – Earth science (also known as geoscience, the geosciences or the Earth Sciences), is an all-embracing term for the sciences related to the planet Earth.
Further…
There are four major disciplines in earth sciences, namely geography, geology, geophysics and geodesy. The major disciplines use physics, chemistry, biology, chronology and mathematics to build a quantitative understanding of the principal areas or spheres of the Earth system.Earth science generally recognizes 4 spheres, the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, the atmosphere, and the biosphere. These correspond to rocks, water, air, and life.
A very important linking sphere is the biosphere, the study of which is biology.
When you look at all these Earthcaches and the process for posting them, they are all about Geology (for the most part). Why just Geology?
Personally I think your proposal would make an excellent addition as an Earthcache and should not even be questioned as to it’s “worth” but because the current “Earthcache” Idea is about Geology-only it probably is not an acceptable topic. (Just my guess in this case as I am not an Earthcache owner or seeker).
Wouldn’t it be great to explore biology, chemistry, meterology… to explore the atmosphere, water, life etc through Earthcaches as well?
I am sure many of these geological formations are stunning but I think by limiting the highlighted sites, sounds, and experiences to just geological topics is missing the true potential of exploring our Earth Sciences.
I say go ahead with your idea and if it’s questioned, come back with some of the information above regarding the fact that it meets the Guidelines of an Earth Science lesson.
-cheeto-
Eric,
Our requirement is that the primary focus of an EarthCache be earth science. At present, this includes geological topics, but not environmental, ecological, biological, botanical, historical, cultural, etc.Then they should change their Guildelines to state this as well and further call it a Geology-Cache instead.
-cheeto-
There’s an “environmental” Earthcache in Appleton by the way… must be “grandfathered” in.
@-cheeto- wrote:
There’s an “environmental” Earthcache in Appleton by the way… must be “grandfathered” in.
Yep that was the first one I did. I have wondered how that one fit.
I pretty much figured that it wouldn’t fit with the current guidelines, but I also agree with cheeto that really, earth science encompasses more than just geology. Particularly in today’s world, with the interest in ecology and our impact on the environment, such earthcaches could be really interesting.
Oh well. I really don’t want to do too much preparation without feeling like it has a decent shot of approval. Too bad. I thought the whole concept of lichens on gravestones was fascinating myself, but I’ve been told I’m weird.
I know they have tight guidelines, but I am sure it helps to keep Earthcaches from going a rye. I know there are issues (not in our state) over some earthcaches that are pushing the limits and from my opinion sad representations of a quality EC.
Recently traveling to another state, we found EC’s of so called Erratics that were placed as markers. I thought they were suppose to have been moved by glaciers NOT by people. A real EC boundary pusher I would say, but HEY… I’m not the approver.
Remember what happened with Locationless caches???? They became so plentiful they bogged down GC.coms server and had to be moved to Waypointing. I would hate to see that happen to EC’s.
I do hope they broaden the types that can be put out, but since it is the Geology Society, of which geoaware is part of, is doing the supporting, I guess we go by the guidelines.
I guess we go by the guidelines
Again, their “guidelines” don’t state that Geology (or the study of) is required as part of the educational value. See guideline #1 on earthcache.org
I might be nit-picking but if they are posting based on this simple guideline than why waste their own time sifting through all the requests like the one that started this thread? (I am sure they get many if there’s a thread here asking..) It seems fixing the guidelines to note Geology as the only Earth science eligible for educational value for an Earthcache to be published would be a great improvement but that’s just me.
oh wait, they’re as clear as our current GC.com guidelines… I get it now.
Ok, I have never done an earth cache and don’t know a thing about them.
But I have a question. There is a parcel of land owned by the WI DNR.
It’s a Demo Forest. About 120 acres. It’s divide into 3 or 4 sections It’s more or less the different types on managed forest. There is a hiking trail and info markers and such. My Grandfather helped “develop” the forest. (there is a stand of native white pines that for whatever reason was never logged during the logging boom) If I were to research this a little better,could I somehow make an Earthcache out of this? With a logging requirement being what the different type of forest there are or some other info?@cheezehead wrote:
Ok, I have never done an earth cache and don’t know a thing about them.
But I have a question. There is a parcel of land owned by the WI DNR.
It’s a Demo Forest. About 120 acres. It’s divide into 3 or 4 sections It’s more or less the different types on managed forest. There is a hiking trail and info markers and such. My Grandfather helped “develop” the forest. (there is a stand of native white pines that for whatever reason was never logged during the logging boom) If I were to research this a little better,could I somehow make an Earthcache out of this? With a logging requirement being what the different type of forest there are or some other info?According to the response that I received, I would say no because it is not geological. Now if it were 10,000 years old and petrified, it might make it.
@furfool wrote:
@cheezehead wrote:
Ok, I have never done an earth cache and don’t know a thing about them.
But I have a question. There is a parcel of land owned by the WI DNR.
It’s a Demo Forest. About 120 acres. It’s divide into 3 or 4 sections It’s more or less the different types on managed forest. There is a hiking trail and info markers and such. My Grandfather helped “develop” the forest. (there is a stand of native white pines that for whatever reason was never logged during the logging boom) If I were to research this a little better,could I somehow make an Earthcache out of this? With a logging requirement being what the different type of forest there are or some other info?According to the response that I received, I would say no because it is not geological. Now if it were 10,000 years old and petrified, it might make it.
Thanks! OK…..how about a volcanic rock outcroping? Ya don’t see too many of the in North West Wisconsin. I have no clue as how I’d set that up thou. The DOT had to blow some of it up to build Hwy 77.
“cheezehead wrote:Thanks! OK…..how about a volcanic rock outcroping? Ya don’t see too many of the in North West Wisconsin. I have no clue as how I’d set that up thou. The DOT had to blow some of it up to build Hwy 77.That should work….gather what info you can see who will give the OK on it, unless it is on the roadside and there is no one to contact. The questions should have the visitor doing something there, like measuring guestimating size, elevations, etc
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.