evilrooster

quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:If it's an easy cache to get to and you don't hear from the owner, leave a temp log, take the wet one home to dry it and place it back in the cache as soon as you can. Put the temp log in its own Ziplock bag so that it doesn't get wet in a wet cache. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

Well, after reading this thread, specifically Renegade Knight's comment, I browsed some of the other national threads. (Didn't have time to do US-regional.) What's with some of the Canadians? Something in the water? I kept wishing for a FAQ to grasp the history of the arguments. At least the UK threads stayed on topic, no matter how heated they got. I can't even figure out what most of the Canadian comments mean, apart from the fact that they are mean. On a more serious note, reading them made me wish there were some way of exporting the atmosphere in my region... evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

quote:Originally posted by Teasel: quote:Originally posted by evilrooster:And I have had someone leave porn in one of my placements, which cannot (by definition) happen for a virt. Well, I've seen some pretty explicit graffiti out there sometimes Actually, considering some of the areas that my Burke & Hare cache takes you near...hm. At least I *didn't* end it at the Burke & Hare lapdancing bar, as one of my finders suggested. quote:There seems to be a gradual move on GC.com to separate out the different types of caches. Benchmarks have always been separate and Jeremy's said that locationless caches are going to be separated out completely. I wouldn't be surprised if he did the same thing to virtuals sooner or later. In that case, I wish he could leave the status quo until the new functionality was ready. As it stands, these cache types just get stuck in different degrees of limbo. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

There's a cacher in our area who did a lot of non-GPS finding. I can only recall one time where she ran into trouble, when she was doing a multi of mine. She got the coordinates for the final cache, but couldn't convert them into a format that the mapping software would handle. The assistance I gave her was merely to do a numeric conversion...she had everthing else well nailed down. Far from considering it "cheating", I am truly impressed by the meticulous research, clever orienteering, and patience that this approach takes. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

A journey disguised as a destination. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

quote:Originally posted by Renegade Knight:You think there is controversy here. You should read their forums. Depends on the forum. The UK one is pretty peaceful, actually. We had a hot time of it a few months ago, but the main (US cacher dominated) forums seem to have two or three incandescent threads going at any given time. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

DD, Thanks for your comments on my Burke & Hare cache. I hope you do get a chance to try it out sometime! I am not hugely happy with the move against virtuals in GC.com as a whole...I think the tendency toward over-regulating the game may strangle it in the end. On the other hand, these things are often a pendulum. Maybe we'll see a swing back in time. I also wish there were some way to limit the number of low-quality physical caches. I think I've been extremely lucky in my hunting, in that I haven't found a dud yet, but I do hear of some pretty bad ones out there. And I have had someone leave porn in one of my placements, which cannot (by definition) happen for a virt. As DD points out. I have to say that I really appreciate the attitude Lactodorum and Eckington have taken toward the whole thing. Pragmatic, honest, and co-operative. I haven't tried to submit a virt under the new rules (no inspiration, no time to research with a baby on the way), but I do believe that I'd get a fair shake from them if I did. Thanks, guys, for improving what otherwise feels like a really unfriendly atmosphere for fans of virts! evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

quote:Originally posted by MountainMudbug:If I'm out hunting one of these new caches and don't bring my own trade animal, is it kosher to pick up any old kritter I happen find along the way and stuff it in as a trade? Latest cache log from evilrooster: Went caching...page showed cache was the new "critter" type. I was sure I was approaching the right spot when someone grabbed me by the back of the neck. Then I heard a voice. "This'll do...let's see, time to sign the log. Took hamster, left chicken. I'm probably trading up, here." I'm logging this with my webphone. Someone get me out of here! evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat: quote:Originally posted by evilrooster: My perception of the rules on virts is that they have come about because of a set of people, very active on the forums, who dislike them for being "impure" to the spirit of caching. Being vocal enough, they've convinced the admins that they represent a rump of opinion. No, the change came from the top, down. There was no groudswell of opinion in the forums against virtuals. I don't even recall a vocal minority coming out against them. quote:Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:That's what some of us are trying to change. Virtuals and Benchmarks should not be in the same category as traditional caches. It doesn't matter if GC.com lists them or all virtuals are moved to waypoint.org, they are different types and should be separate. This is the sort of thing I meant by that comment. For clarity, I have no problem with any cacher having any opinion on how things should be run. But I am disappointed that others' prejudices are on their way to ruining my fun. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

quote:Originally posted by ~erik~: quote: Better to let the local cache scene develop than to colonise it with vacation caches, I say... That's a good way to put it, evilrooster. The sun never sets on the British geocaching empire? That was pretty much the meaning I was going for...surely a primarily American audience can identify with the sentiment. quote:InToTheWoods is right though - without a non-local to seed the area would the local geocaching scene have developed? Perhaps not, perhaps yes, but more slowly. Our experience in Edinburgh is that "if you hide them, they will come." When I started caching, there was one cache in Edinburgh, by the one local cacher (He hunts caches throughout Scotland and the north of England). I duly found that one cache. Then I did a few out of town, then started hiding. Then other people got interested, and started adding caches of their own. We just had a cache bash, admittedly drawing people from all over Scotland and the UK, but with seven or eight local cachers in attendance as well. quote:Hopefully the cache poor areas of the world will be "seeded" by geocachers who've moved there on business or are on a regular business cycle to the area - in other words a non-local who can maintain the cache. All you really need are one or two caches in the area. Tourists may feel that that distribution is too thin, but I would very much prefer that locals (native or transplanted - I'm an American expat, though after 10 years I'd consider myself a local) have the chance to choose the optimal location. Local knowledge makes a huge difference. The caches I've set up include a few specifically targetted to tourists. They're distributed to take cachers to the main areas of the city centre, but are all located in places that only a local would know about. A tourist might have left a cache in the same general area, but probably not in quite the same spot. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

Another devil's advocate point about vacation caches in less-densely cached areas... Just because those places don't currently have a lot of cachers doesn't mean they won't in time. And how will the locals feel about having had all the best places snaffled by tourists who have long gone home? Or worse yet, what about cases where the tourists placing the caches haven't understood local sensibilities, and have placed something inappropriate? That could make for some bad blood indeed, between local and foreign cachers, or between geocachers and officialdom. Better to let the local cache scene develop than to colonise it with vacation caches, I say... evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

At the risk of treading on the great Markwell's toes, anyone noticed this thread? evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:I stated my take on the reasons for the move against virutals in my earlier post (and I didn't make the stuff up. I've heard it from several approvers), so yes, you've been corrected. These ones, I presume. quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:People were making virtuals of every roadside marker in existence, no matter how banal and also things like fence posts, rotting animal carcasses and an abandoned sneaker in the woods (tell me what brand to log a find). Quality issue. quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:Another reason was when negotiating with land managers to get them to allow geocaches in their parks, they would often point to virtuals as an acceptable alternative, making it difficult to get real caches approved in many places. Not directly a quality issue. However, why object unless you view traditionals as better quality than virtuals, in which case the offer to let us set virts becomes a second-class offer? quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:And finally, as GPSax said, they cracked down in order to bring the sport back to its roots, which is finding _caches_ and not being just another waypoint.org. Why return the sport to its roots unless you feel it's gone astray? Arguably another quality issue. quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:A virtual should be something that makes you say "wow!". Not something that makes you say "yeah, so what". There were far too many of the latter. Quality issue. I make it 50% definitely due to a feeling that virts were low quality, and 50% that traditionals are better than virtuals, possibly because of the same reason. Otherwise aren't we back to the old "if you don't like them don't hunt for them" meme? quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat: quote: My perception - and I await correction - is that the move against virtuals is due to a feeling that they are of lower quality on average than the physical ones. That's not true. There are some great virtuals out there. Here is an excellent one One of the geocachers I found it with had never logged a virtual before and hasn't since, but he loved this hunt. A good cache is a good cache, virtual, or not. That is my point. Are we going to start violently agreeing with one another? I think we've done this to death; posts are getting heated. I hope that some of my concerns, particularly about publicising the more literal interpretation of the virtual guidelines outwith the forums, will be addressed, and that virts won't be killed off altogether. But I'm just one cacher; clearly my voice only counts for so much. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

quote:Originally posted by mtn-man:Unfortunately each time a topic is posted here by one of the people that gets upset the same issues get rehashed over and over and the same discussion is revived and perpetuated generally by the same few people. Evidence of that is seen by some of the people posting on this topic discussing both side of the issue. GC.com does not stop this discussion though, so here we go again. If every one of the people that just moved on or converted their virtual posted here that might be great, but obviously it is not needed. Please just understand that the percentage that I see is small. I think that only one or two that I have dealt with of the hundreds that I have archived have posted here. For the record, this is the third time I have ever posted to a discussion such as this, and the first time I have posted in depth. Nor have I had a virtual rejected, perhaps because I haven't been inspired to set one lately (it has to be a really good idea before I'll do the work). I simply feel that the move against virtuals has a few problems (such as lack of publicity outwith the forums). I also am concerned that it will not solve some of the longer-term challenges that geocaching faces (like low-quality traditional caches). I am sorry you feel this has been hashed to death, mtn-man, but implying that anyone who has a different view on virtuals has a case of sour grapes is not the way to convince the unconvinced. As a member of the geocaching community, I have a number of concerns that I think are worth airing and considering. I thought that's what discussion forums were for? evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

quote:Originally posted by seneca: quote:Originally posted by mtn-man:Without opinion this is just black and white. I don't ever want geocaching to be just black and white myself. Without opinions there would be NO virtual caches. Physical caches are approved all the time without subjective opinion being involved in any part of the approval process. There are clear objective guidelines to follow. That's how I like it. I'm afraid I take the complete opposite view, seneca. My perception - and I await correction - is that the move against virtuals is due to a feeling that they are of lower quality on average than the physical ones. Therefore, the resources they take (0.1 mile radius exclusion zones, server space, approver time) might be "better used" on the physical caches. Look at the examples that have been cited so far: drive-by plaques, Christmas displays, and the like. This is also why I suspect micros will be next on the hit list - I've already run across threads where people have said that they dislike them because they're generally "worse" than traditional caches, and can there please be a filter for them? But the cache density in the busiest areas is going to keep on growing, as will the number of cachers. Eventually the "really good" places will be blocked, even if you don't factor in virtuals. So, inevitably, at some point we're either going to have to stop hiding, or start weeding out the lower quality physical caches. Somehow. Adding a judgemental element to virtual approval is easy - particularly with the new "approver information" field, which can be used to give the cache approver an idea of what the cache is about. Adding a judgemental element to physical cache approvals would be harder, of course, but I suspect in time it will in time be necessary. Why not start thinking about it now, and treat both (all) types as subject to approval? quote:Originally posted by seneca:The day the rules change such that my cache submission will be judged in a subjective manner prior to being approved, will be the day I stop hiding caches. That was my first impulse as a virtual setter. But my opinion has changed to what I have just stated. I think we need to "raise the bar" on all caches eventually. I mostly object to the fact that virts are being targeted first and treated as "guilty till proven innocent." The example that comes to mind, as cited in the UK forum at one point, was of a hider who set a virt at a motorway lay-by, demanding the number of the rubbish bin in that lay-by. It was quite properly rejected, even under the old regime. Fine. But if he'd hidden a film canister at that same lay-by, it would have been accepted. How is that superior? evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

quote:Originally posted by ~erik~:evilrooster, you come across as somewhat negative in your post above. Wasn't intending to be negative. It's more that as a fan of virtuals, I feel sidelined, ignored, and occasionally persecuted. (Well, I would if I took the forums personally...) quote:Originally posted by ~erik~:However I'd like you to know that I've always had this cache of yours bookmarked. I have sent that link to countless people as an example of a virtual cache I would not hesitate to post. Just reading it gives me a thrill, and I hope one day to log it. I appreciated your comments to me when I posted it - they made me feel very welcome as a first time cache setter. I have met at least one of the cachers that you sent the link to, when she was in town. If you ever find yourself in Edinburgh, please do get in touch as well as doing the cache. quote:Originally posted by BrianSnat:A virtual should be something that makes you say "wow!". Not something that makes you say "yeah, so what". quote:Originally posted by ~erik~:However it's the routine drive-by roadside markers and enumerable graves of another locally famous person that caused the backlash against virts. If all were of the caliber of yours we wouldn't have this issue. I guess my main point in my post is that a traditional cache should make you say "wow!" too. I've seen so many routine hike-by Tupperware and ammo boxes on the cache listings. If I tarred all of them with the same brush the way virts seem to have been tarred, where would we be? BTW, I wasn't actually thinking of BrianSnat, or anyone else, when I referred to a vocal minority on the forums. I'm a pretty visual person, and the way that everyone keeps changing their avatars means that unless someone has been notable enough for me to note their userID, I can't keep track of who's who. But there has been a theme of "virtuals are bad, we hate them" in the forums for most of the time I've been in geocaching. Some of it seems to be from that set of people that you find in every community, who want rules for everything. It's a natural, and in many cases, necessary trend, but it can stifle innovation and fun. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

I have a couple of concerns about the current policy with regard to virtuals, some of which do mirror Steve & Mary's. First of all, the wording of the policy still hasn't changed all that much on the "Hide and seek a cache" page. If you don't hang around the forums, you might not have got the message that the rules are tighter than they were before. This creates its own problems. For instance, if you design a virtual, and really spend some time getting it just right, how infuriating is it going to be to be told it's not allowed? The second problem is that the rules, written and unwritten, don't take account of the setter's judgement. Sometimes the appropriate type of cache for an area is, quite frankly, a virtual. Not a traditional, not a micro, not an offset. I have two virtual caches, each with 100% positive logs in them. In each case, the goal is a physical object, but one that I could not own or trade. I chose to make them the objects of virtuals because they were worth seeing for their own sake. Each provoked a strong reaction (horror in one case, laughter in the other). Leading the cacher off to some box of goodies after seeing them would be an anticlimax, and totally pointless. And no, they're not appropriate for waypointing. That site doesn't allow the kind of postings and management that were appropriate for the caches. My third problem with the policy is that it doesn't actually improve quality. My first virtual, which was also my first cache placement, took a good 40 hours' work to research, calculate, arrange, and playtest. (A side note - how frustrating would it have been to have my cache rejected then?) I had sought relatively few caches at the time, and was clearly naive. With more experience, I know now that I should just get a box and some goodies and spend an hour or two stuffing it in some hiding place in the woods, instead of doing all that quality research and writing. Silly me. My perception of the rules on virts is that they have come about because of a set of people, very active on the forums, who dislike them for being "impure" to the spirit of caching. Being vocal enough, they've convinced the admins that they represent a rump of opinion. If virts go (as they seem to be), then I bet micros will be in the crosshairs within a few months. Eventually we'll all be hunting identical boxes in identical spots in the woods, each with a set number of items of set quality inside. Or rather, you will. I'll probably have got bored and left. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail- [This message was edited by evilrooster on October 08, 2003 at 01:50 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by StarshipTrooper: quote:Originally posted by HardCache:Personally, I'd like to see large predators purposely introduced into areas overpopulated with vermin...say, wealthy suburbs...executive boardrooms...Washington, D.C. LOL! Don't forget UC Berkley. Charming. evilrooster (BA in Latin, UCB, 1992) http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

I grew up in Humboldt County, CA (known at the time as the Emerald Triangle), so none of this is news to me. I'm surprised it hasn't come up before in the forums (or maybe it has; no need to Markwell me, guys!) I used to know lots of people who were involved in growing. Not like, not approve of, but at least know. Let me explain why they're doing what they do. Up where I was, there were no jobs to speak of. The land isn't very fertile, cattle are expensive to raise, the timber industry is dead, tourism isn't really an option, and gold panning and firefighting aren't exactly steady incomes. But dope is easy money. Now, growing on your own land is stupid. Basically, if you have used assets in the production of illegal drugs, the government can confiscate those assets. (I hear the DEA speedboat auctions in Florida are a great source of good kit.) Many of the folks I knew had nothing else but their land, and weren't keen on losing that. The "best" option was to grow on government land. It had a kind of "thumb your nose at the Man" logic. (The second best option was to grow on someone else's land, but that leads to local feuds and other bad stuff. I digress, though, since we're mostly talking public land here.) These patches are valuable. They're people's only source of income in hard times, the product of work (however illegal), and in locations that take time to scout out and develop. Some growers think that sort of investment is worth protecting, and some of them will do it violently. I suspect that a certain proportion of the Bigfoot hunters and vacationers who vanish in the mountains every year are in shallow graves somewhere after stumbling on the wrong patch. I'm not in favor of dope growing, though I've moved so far away that it's really not my problem any more. And I'm certainly not in favor of booby-trapping dope patches. But the situation does exist. Your decision whether or not to carry a weapon when caching notwithstanding, be careful out there. A land mine doesn't care if you have a handgun. If you find some marajuana plants in the woods, here's my advice. 1. Take a waypoint. 2. Get out of there. Back out, in your own footsteps if possible, then leave the area. Don't wait around. 3. Report your findings to the authorities. The county sheriff's department is probably your best bet. 4. Report your experience to the cache owner. If it's close to a cache, maybe that's a cache that should be disabled for a few weeks until the patch is gone. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail - [This message was edited by evilrooster on October 07, 2003 at 08:28 AM.]

We're back from the second trip, now. Not hugely successful, sadly. Went after Vakantie Gevoel near Heerlen on bikes, but got soaked to the skin and had to abandon the hunt at the last stage (toddler and husband both lost the plot a bit...). Then my Palm (half my GPS) ran out of batteries and we couldn't do the Amsterdam caches (both of the physicals were on our list). Sigh... evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

quote:Originally posted by thorax:Firstly, you mention there are 52 virtual caches within a 20 mile radius in Austin (well, I guess that depends on where you put the center)…to 35 in the same area around London….Well, when I looked up how many total caches there where within 20 miles of the center of Austin (using the Goddess of Liberty on our capital as the center) I found 242 total. When I did a search within 20 miles of what I assumed was the center of London, I only found 138 total caches… I think one of the main points that Eckington was making was the lower cache density as a whole, and the lower overall density of virtuals, rather than a "proportional" comparison. Remember that each cache, virt or physical, creates a .1 mile "exclusion zone" where nothing else can be placed. With the current priorities on physical caches, that means (if you hate virtuals, as some people seem to) that there are 52 "dead zones" in Austin and 26 in London. quote:Caches which show on Jeremy Irish’s website are those which please Jeremy Irish. It is not uncommon for businesses, including websites, to foster the illusion of “community” to try to increase customer loyalty. Mr. Irish has made it quite clear that what he says goes, which on a business level surprises me, but on a personal level does not. Yes, but we as his customer base can discuss his decisions, to give him an idea whether a policy will gain or lose him customers (and, therefore, money). I tend to see the anti-virt thing as the product of a certain crowd of cachers, very active on the notice boards, who feel the activity needs to be heavily regulated. If they kill off virts altogether, I suspect micros will be the next target. But that's just me. Post edited to remove ethnic reference from previous posts, and my response. The cacher in question has edited his/her post to remove the comments in question, so there is no sense leaving any references to the issue here. Apart from this note, of course And Eckington, thanks for the clarification, and the realistic view, on virtuals. I've said it in other places, and I'll say it here. There are some damned good virts and some pretty rotten physical caches. I don't think banning virts will raise the cache quality. I'm glad you're not doing it. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail- [This message was edited by evilrooster on September 28, 2003 at 07:35 AM.]

Phew. I am so glad to hear it! A potent reminder to all of us parents, by the way, that most of the kids that go missing do come back, despite the horror stories the media feed us... evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

As a primarily urban cacher, I find micros useful. Quite simply, there are places in town where you can hide a film canister or a swimming splashbox that you simply can't put a Tupperware box or an ammo can. And the fact that they're difficult to find means non-cachers are less likely to stumble on them! I can't really see the point in the more wild areas, where there's always somewhere to hide a larger box. (But again, it depends on the area.) But as to trades, there are things you can put in a micro. Coins, of course, are a classic. And with the introduction of the Euro, there are more "cachable" coins, between the legacy currencies and all the national variations on the new coins. As a girlie, I'm also prone to hiding stud earrings (though with the fad for body piercing that's not a girlie thing anymore ) and other small items of jewelry. quote:We like them not just for being physical instead of virtual For the record, I love virtuals as well. Again, there are places in the cities where your choices are so constrained that virts have a place. Unlike the posters in some other areas of the forums, I appreciate the wide variety of cache types. I always cringe when I hear people condemn any type, from virt to micro, because different places require different soluctions. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

I am a bookbinder, and make small leather notebooks (about 3 1/2" by 2 1/2" x 1/2" thick) as signature items. I have a special tool that allows me to emboss my rooster emblem in the leather, either "blind" or in gold. (I actually use it on all my books, not just the ones in caches). They're enormously popular, though I haven't ever seen any turn up as logbooks. I think people like them too much to leave them in a cache. I use Ziplock sandwich bags to protect them from moisture. evilrooster http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail- [This message was edited by evilrooster on September 27, 2003 at 05:03 AM.]

quote:Originally posted by Bloencustoms:I suggest that if virts are to be discouraged, a link explaining the reasons why (old ones grandfathered, lame, vacation cache, waypoint.org, etc.) be placed in series with everything having to do with virtuals caches. This way, new cachers won't see virts and think "Oh cool! I wanna make one too.", because they will know right off that they are discouraged. It seems like most of the people complaining about having virts denied had no knowledge of the current state of virt approval. They get exited, spend time creating the cache, then are denied. I don't blame them for having a "Now you tell me!" attitude. Amen. My first cache was a virtual multi (Up the Close and Down the Stair), posted before the rules were tightened. I read everything I could find in the FAQ and information pages on virtuals, then spent a good 40 hours doing the research, setting up, writing, and "playtesting" it. I would have been burned up if it had been denied. I don't know whether it would be accepted under the current rules...one could argue that I could send people to a physical cache at the end rather than the final objective. But that would be an anticlimax - there is no way I could set up a physical cache that would beat the object in that glass case, either for impact or for appropriateness to the cache as a whole. I wonder how many other virtual setters feel like that requirement rather deflates the impact of their carefully chosen virts? (Having then done more caches, I realised that I had perhaps over-prepared for my first one - it's so much simpler to find a hidden place to tuck a Tupperware box or a film canister than it is to do all the research and setting up of a good virtual.) Oh, and for clarity, despite the title of this thread, I am not totally bummed with GC.com. evilrooster -the email of the species is deadlier than the mail- [This message was edited by evilrooster on September 26, 2003 at 09:00 AM.]