LeapFrog & Ms. LadyBug

The reason it keeps being brought up is becuase others mention it (like yourself), and I remind them every time that this topic is not about the cache. Maybe you should read this topic before you fabricate such lies. I do agree that this post has gone off topic, it has gone from useful information to personal attacks. Ironically most of the recent post have been made by approvers. I will take the step and shut this thread down. It has served it surpose, there has been a lot of great ideas - thank you everyone who was willing to discuss what should and should not be a virtual cache along with with is allowed to be a virtual cache. Cheers!

mtn-man, I don't know what I have done to you personally to set you off, but I really don't need the attitude. When I said "regurgitated junk", I am not specifically talking about the guidelines. I am talking about in general unhelpful emails filled with the guidelines that I and other cachers have already read. As I said earlier in this topic (in case you missed it), guidelines are necessary to keep a certain quality to caching. Instead of picking certain keywords out of my comments, please look at what I am saying as a whole. The emails being sent could be a little more helpful and if the approver was more helpful I wouldn't have needed to start this topic. Although I have enjoyed everyone's thoughts and I have learned a lot. It is not that I want the approver to do all the work, just a point in the right direction would be nice. From what I have read, there are a lot of people confused about virtual caches -- so I guess there a lot more idiots in this world who aren't supposedly reading the guidelines. The truth is, they are reading the guidelines, but are just confused. Either way, if an approver is frustrated with this and feels it is necessary to give the cacher an attitude, then maybe the approver is a little burnt out. I don't know you or CO Admin personally, but from my communications thus far, I am not impressed. As for the supposed commercial cache. I am not happy that CO Admin felt it necessary to share the cache that I not only specifically requested not to be shared, but I also commented that I have learned from the cache and moved on. The cache in my opinion is not a commercial cache. It has nothing to do with the facility it is located on and that particular facility does not charge for entrance or sell anything but maybe a few souvenirs (what place doesn't). Plus I am not profiting from it at all. The focus I used in this cache was for this exact reason; I did not want it to be a commercial cache. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. The fact is, the cache IS NOT approved and like I said above your post - this topic has nothing to do with that cache - so DROP IT!

Wow, that is interesting. Especially Wyoming, there are lot of virtuals there compared to physical caches. I haven't looked at WY specifically, but they do have Yellow Stone, mountains, along with a lot of uncivilized area either privately owned or owned by State/Fed gov. I am sure that has added to the reason.

Thank you, I am glad that you understand. I do also realize that the approvers are very busy, but there is a certain tone of customer relations that they need to uphold since they are somewhat representing geocaching.com. I am not saying that all approvers are jerks, most are exactly opposite. What I am saying is that by simply taking a different approach in their emails, making their comments more helpful rather regurgitating the rules could make a world of difference in how the cacher react. It isn't rocket science. With my job, I have to answer many many emails a day. By taking that extra fews second to be helpful has brought a lot of positive feedback. It is harder for emailers to portray emotion in their messages. When the reader gets the message declining their cache they will automatically think of it as a negative - don't you love human nature - assume the worst. So like I said above, it is hard to protray negativity in a helpful message.

For CO Admin and everyone else who still thinks it is necessary that I share my cache - I will say this again. This topic has NOTHING to do with my cache. This topic stemmed from the confusion of what should be a virtual cache and why virtual cache regulations have been stiffened over the past couple of years. It is amazing that with everyone preaching how users should research previous forum threads and research the regulations before submitting a cache, that those same people can't seem to read the previous posts for this topic or the topic name to figure out that the topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cache I submitted. By the way, let me add that I had not mentioned the approver's name until he himself mentioned his name. I did not want to personally attack his integrity, only address a larger issue. Taking into consideration that this topic spawned from the confusion of why my virtual cache and many other virtual caches are denied, there is one thing that truly could have prevented this topic. As a response from the approver I received the "WOW" idea along with regurgitated junk from the regulations I have already read. I thought my cache was within the guidelines and the approver didn't. What could have helped was a more helpful email about not only why the cache was denied, but also what could be done to make the virtual cache possible. If a virtual cache is not at all possible for the location, then a simple explanation that the location is a tourist destination or too well known would have sufficed. Plus it would be helpful for the approvers to give examples of what might make good virtual caches. I know this can be hard to figure out, but I truly believe if approvers put their heads together - that they could come up with some ideas. The problem is that when the approver lists the places not allowed (signs, memorials, tombstones, historical markers, etc.), some of those places under certain circumstances maybe be very virtual cache worthy and it is hard to understand why it would be turned down. It sounds like to me that there needs to be a change in the way cachers think about virtual caches, especially with the stricter rules. By having an idea of places approved may change the whole idea of virtual caches. It may seem natural to some that people should look at the recently approved virtual caches to get ideas. Realistically, many people don't do this. In fact many people don't even read previous logs for a particular cache. For better communication along with less frustration and confusion, such helpful messages can go a long way. The cacher then feels that the approver is there to help, instead of there to deny their cache. It could be that I have just had bad experiences with approvers, but with my experiences, if the approver took a different approach in their emails I may have reacted in a more productive manor. Not that I don't think this topic has been productive. I have learned a lot from what everyone has said and I feel a lot more prepared now then I did after communicating with the approver.

I can understand rules, everywhere has rules. Normally the rules make sense. With the virtual caches the rules make sense but are very general. You would think being general would allow for some freedom on the cachers part. A request to you approvers. I know you have a lot of caches to go through and it is a volunteer position. If a cache would be of interest to cachers, don't block it just because you as the approver is not interested in that particular cache. It is one thing to enforce general guidelines, it is another thing to force your opinion on the cachers in the area. Like I said, everyone knows my opinion. Take it to heart or take it as a grain of salt. One thing I have learned from this topic is to either avoid Virtual Caches or be in constant contact with your local approver. It would be nice (and less discouraging) to have a little more freedom on geocaching.com pertaining to virtual caches. Unless there is a change in the ideaology of geocaching or something better comes along then we are all stuck in a rut. Please forward this to whoever makes the decisions. Rules are good to keep the common trash off the site (porn, cursing, boring caches, etc.), but too many rules infringe on the freedom for geocachers to have fun and ends up frustrating eveyone in the long run. If a rule is not necessary or if a rule is over exagerated, there is no good that comes from it. Thanks for everyones thoughts! Leap Frog

If you would read my full entry, those caches that were approved already were grandfathered in when the rules become more strict. I think that was what you were talking about?

As I mentioned earlier, I do not wish to debate the existence of my cache - I have washed my hands of it. If I wanted people to review it I would have made a topic for people to review my site. The main topic is trying to figure out what is allowed to be a virtual cache and what us as users think should be allowed as a virtual cache. I have not really seen much discussion of specific examples that would be allowed as virtual caches. Not even from the approvers. Only the repitition, the place needs to be a novelty, like what can be found in a coffee table book. Not much help, but there has been a lot of good discussion. Everyone knows my opinion, if the place is of interest to cachers then it should be approved as a virtual cache, especially if a physical cache can not be placed there.

The cache I tried to approve was on private property that provided tours of the facility. I m sure the company that owns the property would not appreciate a physical cache and that is more than enough reason to create a virtual cache. The reason I do not share the cache is because I have learned from the experience and I am learning even more now that we are discussing virtual caches. I think the cache was valuable and have received enough disappointment by not having it approved. I don't need a forum of people nit-picking apart the cache. I hope that it is satisfying enough to everyone that the virtual cache was unique, contained history, and would have been interesting to cachers. The approver obviously disagreed. I also would like to say that I have done my research. I have been caching for little over a year and only have placed one virtual cache. I like to choose very interesting locations and I do read the policies. I am not out to get as many caches as possible approved, that is not and should not be a status symbol of experience in geocaching. Leap Frog

That is pretty much what the approver told me, the funny thing is, my cache was on private land and could not contain any sort of physical cache. Only a virtual cache.

That is interesting. So if I understand you correctly, you think Virtual caches should be intersting to cachers, not some garbage can, but something new or unique that people would be interested in seeing. I agree, as long as it has interest by cachers and that is usually determined by whether people visit the cache. You must have had a much easier approver than I did. Couple of things you might be interested in: From the virtual cache guidelines "The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit. Although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant listing as a unique cache page. " When I talked to the approver, he said that Virtual Caches need not just be interesting, but they need a "WOW" factor to it. This is why I am confused about what contains a WOW factor. I believe if a virtual cache is interesting and enjoyable then it should be approved so others can share in the experience. I pointed out other comparable virtual caches in the area and the approver said the following: "Both caches you mention were approved before the guidelines on virtual caches were tightened up. Therefore they do not apply. They have been allowed to remain because they were Grand Fathered under the old ruling. A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or Geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches. Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples." This is why I can only think of NP and well known monuments, which are things in a coffee table book. I suppose there are a few unknown places. But for the most part that really limits virtual caches. Things that are very interesting could be unapproved.

I highly doubt you will see the entire site turn into virtual caches, there is value to both kinds of caching. We understand that although you like virtuals, that you also hate to question geocaching.com and just want to play by the rules. That is fine. There are others that like to see a product improved. As long as this website collects for membership, they are producing a product for that membership. I can see why this question has been asked so many times. When ever somebody tries to get people to discuss what should and should not be a virtual cache some one goes off on some tangent about hating virtuals or God forbid somebody discusses improving the geocaching.com website. Lets try to keep to the topic, what should be the limitations for a vitual cache? Should virtual caches entail more than just National Parks or well known monuments? LeapFrog

Thanks for the support. I almost feel like I am spending more time defending myself about why I asked the question rather than discussing the topic. Leap Frog

Thanks Mopar for writing something other than a yawn. My virtual cache was located at a private facility, but visitor are able to reach it. Since it is a private facility - I don't think a physical cache would be appropriate, which is why I chose a virtual cache. The approver gave a lot of reasons, all of which I discounted. It came down to the fact that the approver did not like the cache and refuses to post it. I have washed my hands of it, but I am still interested in why such restrictions have been put forth. I do agree that if a physical cache can be placed - then it there should be one, but there are lots of places that do not allow caches. Also a unmaintained cache can turn into litter. So for those who don't want to litter or for those who want to have a cache in a privately owned location or in a National Park, the virtual cache is a great opiton. Aslo, a correction. I am not trying to force geocaching.com to change their policy. They are a company and it is in their best interest to take into consideration their users opinions. Makes sense since they are serving the users. Therefore it would be nice if this thought is so wide spread that they do consider removing the tough restrictions.

Thank you for sharing those links, but hey - it doesn't hurt to discuss it one more time. there are always new people coming to geocaching who might have a new point of view. I was ignoring Mopar, his yawn was unnecessary and rude. If he isn't interested or doesn't want to take part in this topic then he can be mature and leave. There are people, including myself, who are interested in Virtual Caches and don't like the strict restriction imposed ... I will stop there so I don't repeat anything previously said. Thanks for charming in .. LeapFrog

I hate to burst your bubble, but geocaching is essentially waypointing. You can spend hours decifering words into categories, but in order to find a cache you need a waypoint. Then you waypoint your way to a loction where there is a reward. The difference between a cache and a virtual cahce is whether there is a physical reward such as a stash or a visual reward such as a virtual cache. Either way, you should not limit those who enjoy doing both just because you prefer a physical cache. My hopes is that through this forum we might be able to send a message to the administrators that such tight and objective restrictions are not necessary. That is unless I am a loner on this thought. Which is fine - everyone is entitled to their opinions and forums are the place to share them.

Why would they do that? I like to think that geocaching is alive because of the freedom people have gained with GPS technology to go and hunt for interesting caches. Physical or not. The nice thing about the Internet is that users can practice self censorship and choose what caches they would like to visit. Wouldn't it work against geocaching.com to restrict their users and frustrate those who are trying to enjoy geocaching? LeapFrog

Recenlty I have been debating with a cache approver about what is worthy to be a Virtual Cache. The description he gave me is: "A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or Geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects." According to the approver, geocaching.com has recently tightened up their criteria for Virtual Caches. The above is a vague description of the criteria for a virtual cache making the approval of a virtual cache very objective - if it is not of interest to the approver then it won't be approved. What are your thoughts? Should geocaching.com be strict on Virtual Caches? Or, should geocaching.com allow the users to determine for themselves if a particular virtual cache is interesting enough to visit? What, in your opinion, would qualify as a Virtual Cache? This link may be of interest to you: Virtual Cache Guidelines Cheers! LeapFrog

Thank you for adding "Show all logs for: Caches, Bugs, or Benchmarks". I think viewing ALL the caches we have visited in the past is very important - even if it is not found on the main "My Cache Page". This has been mentioned before; I am not a big fan of this new page. I like having everything I need on one page, but I also understand that a page like that can put a strain on the server. My only request is to keep the "Show all logs for: Caches, Bugs, or Benchmarks" accessible. Thanks!

Thank you much! I will request to have placed in the "Guide to Creating and Hiding a Cache"

Many of the caches I have visited have a welcome letter for individuals who found the cache on purpose or by accident. I know this letter is posted somewhere because the text is the same in caches across the U.S., but I can't find this letter on the Geocache website. Does anybody know where to find this letter? Thanks!

Thank you Markwell and everyone else for helping me figure out this problem. Markwell was right on the money. I wrote Groundspeak customer service and they essentially said the same thing that Markwell said. I logged the TB as if I had retrieved it from the wrong cache, then I deleted my original log at the correct cache and re-entered the visit. Since the computer thought I had the TB in my possession it then allowed me to transfer the TB to the correct cache. I then went in and deleted all the old logs for the TB so I could correct the distance the TB traveled. Thanks Again!!! I have included Groundspeak's original message below: The movement of a travel bug is calculated and listed by date order on the web site. Sometimes a travel bug gets logged incorrectly. For example, a travel bug is picked up by one user before the other person has a chance to record its movement on the web site. In this situation you can sometimes fix the movement by adding logs and backdating them so they match the time they were in the missing caches. To do this: 1. Grab the travel bug from wherever it is now. 2. Log the cache you want to drop the travel bug in and select the travel bug so it is left on the caches web page. Make sure to backdate the drop so it matches the date it was left there. 3. Grab the travel bug back and list the date it was picked up as the date it was taken from the cache. 4. Place it back in the cache that it is currently in with today's date. 5. After the miles are correct, delete any of the logs that are unnecessary, like the log in step 4. Step 4 was only to make sure that the travel bug is listed in the right location. Viewing the page should now show the corrected distance that the bug has traveled. Sometimes it is too difficult to add entries after the travel bug has moved around the world. Although it is great to have every stop on its journey recorded, you can still enjoy its continuing journeys.

I did this, but how do you get the travel bug to identify itself with a new cache?

Yeah, tried deleting the entry, but the TB was still associated with the cache. Thanks though .. let me know if you have any other ideas!

I need to know how to reset a travel bug or change the initial drop off information. I accidently logged it as placed in the wrong cache. I need to change it to a new cache. Please help!!!! [This message was edited by OneTequilaTwo on May 18, 2003 at 07:42 PM.]