New caches on Opencaching.us

[glorkar]

If you haven’t checked the site out yet, you should. I’ve just listed two new caches in Oshkosh.
One is a traditional:
Mini-Park
and the other is a virtual:
WSQ Chief Oshkosh.
Great opportunity for the FTF hounds in the group 🙂

[-cheeto-]

I registered and played around a bit.

Couldn’t register my preferred nick as I assume their system can’t support a nickname that starts with a hyphen.

Is there an approval process to publish the cache or no? I notice a recommendation on the submission form of 300 ft from the nearest cache.

I like the idea of an alternative listing site. We’ll see how this one fares long-term.

[cheezehead]

I just signed up also. Will have to play around a bit.

[glorkar]

There is no approval process. You write the cache description, you post the cache. Done. I could see it causing some problems in the future, but we’ll just have to see. I’ll have to check on the nickname thing -cheeto-

[Barry Butrymowicz]

The wheel has already been invented, why try to recreate it?

with only 2 people running the site, how long before it starts having problems?

Think back, its great that its free now, but GC.com started out as a free listing service, once this gets too big for them, and need new equipment or bandwith, I bet there will be a fee too

there are already navicache and terracaching why do we need another listing service?

just my .02 on this, pony up and pay the $30 bucks for a premium membership at GC.com. I will not be cross listing any of my caches

[Captain and Mate]

@glorkar wrote:

There is no approval process. You write the cache description, you post the cache. Done. I could see it causing some problems in the future, but we’ll just have to see.

The problem we’re concerned about is that one badly-placed cache could mushroom into some sort of “anti-caching backlash” that would be harmful to the sport. Also, since the proximity guideline is just a suggestion, this could lead to issues, as well. As glorkar says, we’ll see.

[CodeJunkie]

I’ll be in Oshkosh later today. I might just have to check these out.

[glorkar]

@sweetlife wrote:

The wheel has already been invented, why try to recreate it?

So since Ford made the first car, nobody else should have made one?

@sweetlife wrote:

with only 2 people running the site, how long before it starts having problems?

As the site gets bigger, more admins will be added.

@sweetlife wrote:

Think back, its great that its free now, but GC.com started out as a free listing service, once this gets too big for them, and need new equipment or bandwith, I bet there will be a fee too

I was thinking the same thing. You know what they say, nothing is ever free 🙂

@sweetlife wrote:

there are already navicache and terracaching why do we need another listing service?

I’ve never used navicache, but I am not a fan of terracaching. Because there are no other terracaches in the area, my membership would be revoked after a period because there is no way I’m going to drive to another state just to get one cache and keep my account open. Too selective in their membership that way. Competition helps make things better. If OC.us gets big enough, Groundspeak will have to work harder to be number one.

@sweetlife wrote:

pay the $30 bucks for a premium membership at GC.com.

The money doesn’t concern me, I just like fueling competition 🙂

Like you said though, this is just another listing site. Basically Groundspeak but more primitive. The containers are the same. The hide is the same. The write-ups are the same. Nobody is forcing anybody to use it. If you want to, great. If not, that’s fine too. If you want to shop at Wal-Mart, fine. If you want to shop at Target, that’s fine too. Same stuff, different person promoting 🙂

I am concerned about the self regulation portion. Some people just are not responsible enough. At that point, it’s up to the finders to report the cache and have the listing removed. Reviewers can be a headache at times, but I agree that in the long run they are very beneficial to have. I would like to see them incorporated into OC.us, personally.

I think the biggest draw by far will be the ability to post virtual caches. It seems like there is a demand to be able to do this and get credit for ‘finding’ them.

[Astro_D]

@Captain and Mate wrote:

@glorkar wrote:

There is no approval process. You write the cache description, you post the cache. Done. I could see it causing some problems in the future, but we’ll just have to see.

The problem we’re concerned about is that one badly-placed cache could mushroom into some sort of “anti-caching backlash” that would be harmful to the sport. Also, since the proximity guideline is just a suggestion, this could lead to issues, as well. As glorkar says, we’ll see.

What’s to stop someone from putting a opencache.us on top of or next too a geocache.com cache? Or stopping an opencache.us cache being placed where they should not be if there is no reviewing of such placements? Cachers on gc.com fudge coords and placements as it is and that with some type of oversight in place. No reviewing on opencaching.us? Yikes!

Face it, there are boundless idiots out there and this is a great way to screw over the work the fine folks associated with geocahing.com are doing. While I’m all for competition (gotta love free markets), I think this was rushed a bit too much and not well thought. We’ll see what happens…..

[Braid Beards Gang]

@AstroD-Team wrote:

What’s to stop someone from putting a opencache.us on top of or next too a geocache.com cache?

I know the perfect spot. Someone placed a letterbox on top of one of my caches last month, why don’t we add an “opencache” too. Of course, no permit was acquired for the letterbox. They assumed since I went through the process of the back and forth with land manager, it was O.K.

I applaud your venture, but be aware. It will annoy some of us.

[gotta run]

Look at the bigger picture everyone. Geocaching.com is just a bulletin board. A big one that requires you to ask to put stuff on it, but a bulletin board nonetheless. It doesn’t own the world.

So whether it’s terracaching, navacaching, opencaching, letterboxing.org, atlasquest.com, Big Bob’s Big Bulletin Board o’ Caches…people are going to play outside. It would be polite if they didn’t stack a letterbox on top of a geocache, but go to the letterboxing boards and you’ll hear letterboxers complain about that from their perspective. And some sites get along just fine without reviewers too.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[cheezehead]

@gotta run wrote:

Look at the bigger picture everyone. Geocaching.com is just a bulletin board. A big one that requires you to ask to put stuff on it, but a bulletin board nonetheless. It doesn’t own the world.

So whether it’s terracaching, navacaching, opencaching, letterboxing.org, atlasquest.com, Big Bob’s Big Bulletin Board o’ Caches…people are going to play outside. It would be polite if they didn’t stack a letterbox on top of a geocache, but go to the letterboxing boards and you’ll hear letterboxers complain about that from their perspective. And some sites get along just fine without reviewers too.

DITTO!

[CodeJunkie]

2 more FTF’s today thanks to this new project.

[CodeJunkie]

OK you number hounds – here’s a great opportunity. I just downloaded the GPX files after logging these as found and they imported perfectly into my GSAK database. They contained the right data, the proper cache types etc. So what’s the point? If you’re all about the numbers then merge these into your GSAK database and call them found. Just a thought.

[BakRdz]

Can you say USFL or XFL?

Makes me wonder how much research went into this before starting. To me, I don’t see a need for this. Before introducing a new product or service, the first question that should be asked is what do people STRONGLY dislike about the product or service that people are currently using. The only way people will change habits is because of significant pain or gain – the current situation is a pain or the new service provides great gain. (Think iTunes allowing people to easily carry all their music AND purchase songs individually instead of having to take a chance with the whole album)

While I don’t initially see anything wrong with Opencaching’s site (they pretty much copied the listing functionality of GCs site), I don’t see anything that it provides me that is significantly better than GC other than Free and the virtual caches. Free is fine, but not a big enough motivation for me to change my habits. I was a free GC.com member for my first few months and it was fine. I only decided to give them money because I liked the notifications and other features. If I didn’t think those were worth the price, I could easily revert to the free service again with no issue and still keep caching.

Besides, the $30 a year is a small chunk of change compared to the $30 – 60 per MONTH for internet service to access the site or the $200 or more for the GPS needed to start playing the game.

Personally, I would have focused the site completely on virtuals only. No worries of container overlap and it provides a unique service no longer offered by GC.com that people have been requesting come back. Now that is a site I might be more interested in adding to my mix.

[Author]

Posts