From:
Randy Hall <randy@mapsurfer.com>
Sent: 6/13/2000 1:25:44 AM
To:
gpsstash@egroups.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject:

Re: [gpsstash] Fw: "Cache of Fun" GeoCoded-CyberStash



> By comparison, the letterboxing north america site (the only comparable
> organization I can think of) has around 360 active letterboxes, starting
> in 1997 -- thats about 10 a month.

FWIW, we began in Apr '98 ('97 is ValleyQuest which is another
letterboxing project that claims it started in '89). In any case,
Geocaching is growing much faster than we did in the early days,
primarily for two reasons (IMO):

a) Geocaching has the ready made gps newsgroup to target prospective
participants while we had to cobble things together one person at a
time
b) Geocaching is simpler; most prospects already have a gps and
know how to use it, but few outdoors types are stamp carvers plus
clue writers and solvers, etc. Geocaching has instant appeal with
little cost of entry or learning curve.

When we started, we went through all the same arguments. All I can
say is don't go there. Concentrate on the game, get out in the
woods, and don't blow it with a lot of blather that may turn people
off. I realise this list is for Geocaching and not Letterboxing, but
since we went through the same stuff, here is a summary of some of
our conclusions on the recent arguments, FWIW:

We had the cyberboxing concept. It was crushed; the feeling being that
finding something physical in the field was important.

We had the littering discussion. I believe it was decided that there
is an arguable distinction between what is the target of a hunt
containing something of value intentionally placed and what is litter.

We had the legal discussion. Answer: see a lawyer if you want to --
debating it on the list is a waste of time unless someone on the list
is a lawyer that practices the relevant sort of law.

We had the "urban" discussion. The feeling was that it was important
that there be zero chance of accidental discovery.

We had the "rules" discussion. Answer: use common sense and operate
within the given framework, but there are no real "rules" per se --
there is plenty of room for different ideas. Define the framework
first -- is it going to waypoints or is it taking/leaving/writing?
[I think keeping it simple with the latter makes sense, and evolving
after more of a critical mass is achieved is the wise course.]

We had a schism or two because of some of these arguments (primarily
the "rules" one). Unfortunate.

--
randy "the mapsurfer"
http://www.letterboxing.org