seneca

I may be wrong, but I really don't think this is true. I believe the real problem was there were just too many virtual caches being created, in a game that was essentially meant for physical caches. The purpose of the current policy (in my view) is to limit the quantity of virtuals, not to limit bad virtuals. This policy would not be required if virtuals were banned from "Geocaching" altogether (which I have suggested in the past) and instead allowed in a different game called "Geo-waypointing/touring/sightseeing or whatever - which could also be hosted by this site in the same way that "Benchmarking" is.

It's a good thing he's not that bright. It seems clear that he has an axe to grind, and could have been much more effective at achieving mischief had he not come across as such a jerk. (you can usually tell the genuine jerks from the genuine jerks who are trying extra hard to come across as a genuine jerk - this guy is the latter). I concluded quite quickly that this person was likely not sincere, and hence I felt that it was acceptable to allow myself to get a little personal by subtly throwing back the "retarded" adjective his direction. I do however agree, that his type should be banished for good. He adds nothing whatsoever to these forums. (edit : spelling)

Yeah, but I'm not. Stop discriminating me, eh! Sorry, I certainly don't want to discriminate against Finland either. Your company too, is fine Devine. By the way, what's the safest place to geocache in Finland (that is part of America isn't it?? - oh no, I'm wrong ... sorry I'm getting confused with New Finland)

Do you really believe there is any chance of that happening with this guy? Come on .... think it through.

You start this thread off with a stamp-your-feet paddy rant, without even waiting for a reply? Just what we're you referring to when you said "this is retarded"?

Oops. Sorry Haldon - I just realized you ARE from Canada. Thanks for the company.

Yeah, you know its that huge empty space between the lower 48 and Alaska.

Too bad that us geocachers from the other 193 countries that visit this site have been excluded from this discussion. I also can't understand why America doesn't warrant its own regional forum. If I were you guys, I'd complain about that

Yeah that makes sense. And further, other than convention, there isn't really much reason to go camping at all. I already own a nice warm home. What possible reason could I have to spend time with my family living in a tent??

I am not a tree-hugger (probably the polar opposite), but I always try to avoid putting nails in trees on public lands. When camping, it sometimes looks like the easiest way to set an overhead tarp, or to make a cup-hook, but for some reason (perhaps irrational) it just seems wrong to me. I think my feelings have something to do with having respect for our parks. Graffiti on a bus-stop bench causes no harm to the bench, but I still find it disrespectful to public property. It would not seem unreasonable to me for a land manager to complain if geocachers were putting nails in trees. The sanctioned trail markers mentioned by BrianSnat, seem to me to be an easy and necessary way to mark trails, and are definately not a sign of disrespect for the forest.

It's not necessary. Currently there are no guidelines to regulate the aesthetic quality of physical caches, and it doesn't seem that anyone is clamouring to have such regulation. This type of free range caching we enjoy, should, in my opinion, also apply to virtual caches. The only problem is that it would result in a proliferation of virtual caches, which under the current format, is something many would oppose. Sounding like a broken record: Separate them out into a discreet game and let them flourish!

Its easy to stop a proliferation of obviously stupid, inappropriate caches whether they be virtual, or physical. Just don’t approve them. The “running shoe” and “rotting carcass” caches, are by any reasonable person’s objective opinion, not appropriate. The purpose of subjective process used in approving virtuals has, by the very words set out in the so called guidelines, nothing to do with eliminating inappropriate caches, and everything to do with taking away the geocaching community’s ability to decide on its own whether a cache is aesthetically worthy of approval. This has had the desired effect of keeping virtual caches to a minimum, which in my view is the reason why the subjective approval process is in place. I prefer to see Geocaching.com as providing an excellent platform for the posting of caches. I accept that it necessary for such a platform to have objective guidelines in place for safety and environmental reasons, and to maintain the integrity of the game. However, to me the creativity and the aesthetic approval/disapproval of caches (whether they be physical, virtual or whatever) should always be left to those who actually play the game.

TeamJiffy, an excellent post! If your comments and solutions were acted upon, threads of this type would dissappear and Geocaching.com would be much improved. I suspect that making the changes you have suggested might not be a simple as it may seem, but it would really be worthwhile for Geoaching.com to to follow that path. There is lots that can be done outdoors with a GPS, and this excellent site could become a very broad and useful resource in this regard.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. How does having "higher" requirements change "geogeowandering or geositeseeing or geotourism" into geocaching??

(emphasis added). There are no published guidelines for virtual caches. I repeat: There are no published guidelines for virtual caches. Virtuals are approved solely by the subjective whim of an approver. The words "A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a very unique and compelling nature" and "Although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant listing as a unique cache page." are not guidelines (even if they are disguised as such). These words amount to: If we like it we might approve it. Proper guidelines exist so a person can be reasonably assured that if followed, the cache will be approved. That is not the case with virtual caches at geocaching.com. In order to get a virtual cache approved you must first win a little "impressing" contest with the approver, where you can somehow trigger his or her subjective sentiment in your favor (and there are no guidelines to help you there).

Don't you know about the "compelling interest" to geocachers requirement for virtuals? I'm sorry but I have no compelling interest to swim in the middle of a bunch of stingrays and sharks. I think its safe to presume that the majority of geocachers are probably wusses like me.

At least you are learning something. Too bad that you wasted your time, without being aware that the current effective rule is: NO VIRTUALS. They do however give you the futile privilege of trying to demonstrate that your proposed virtual should somehow be an exception to the rule. Virtuals have not been banned outright, so that naive people like you (who through no fault of your own aren’t aware of the effective rule) can become frustrated and disappointed. Quite sadistic isn't it? It happens all the time and usually results in a discussion on the forums like this one.

It is?? To each their own I guess. Don’t get me wrong - there’s nothing wrong with healthy competition, but I have never considered Geocaching as a competition, and I hope I never do. I find Geocaching personally challenging, but I hope that my personal conquests don’t negatively impact on the enjoyment that other cachers like Goldfishy get from it. My advice to Goldfishy, is to read the logs of caches and select only the ones that look like they are going to be a real adventure to a neat area you have never been to before. Preferably one that includes a good hike. You certainly won’t be able to collect a dozen of these in a day! - maybe 2 - 3 tops. Pack a lunch. Look forward to arriving at a destination. If the cache hider recommends a particular route take it even if it looks longer - its probably the most scenic. When you get to the cache area, enjoy it and have a good look around. If you find the cache, spend some time reading the logbook and having a good look at the interesting signature items. If you don’t find it - no big deal. Sit down on a nice rock and eat your lunch while enjoying the view. Take a deep breath, let it out, and you will find yourself saying “Yes - this is what Geocaching is all about”. And oh yeah, don’t be turned off by difficulty 3, 4 & 5's - I would way rather be the first to log a "Did Not Find" on a really enjoyable cache hunt, than boast about being FTF on a lame 1/1 hidden in a ditch behind a warehouse.

I’ve used it once to report a low blow personal attack made against another poster. I felt I had four choices: 1. Ignore it (that’s not my style); 2. Respond frankly and truthfully (I’m certain such a response would itself have broken numerous forum guidelines); PM the abuser (I believe this would have been an unpleasant exercise in futility); 4. Report the post. I chose number four. I got a response from a moderator who said they had several people reporting posts from that particular poster and then thanked me, and assured me they were going to do something about it. Reporting posts should hopefully be a very infrequent occurrence. However, it can sometimes be a constructive way to deal with an inappropriate post without inflaming the situation. If I was a moderator, I think I would like to hear from those on the forums who believe something inappropriate has been posted.

I am missing something here? How in the world does taking a picture of your child and posting it to this site create any type of unusual risk of harm?? Put this into perspective: I have seen hundreds (no, probably thousands) of children on nationally televised commericals and in magazines with circulation in the millions. Is anyone aware if lots of those children have been accosted by wierdos? I doubt it. And that type of exposure is probably several million times (or perhaps several hundred million times) the exposure of a couple of photographs on geocaching.com. If a reputable national advertising company were to offer your child $100,000 to star in a series of MacDonald's TV commercials, am I right to presume, that for their safety you would very quickly and firmly say no?? Some of my favorite photographs that I have posted to Geocaching.com are of my children and nephews and neices - and I cherish going back and looking at them. I have no concern whatsoever of creating any risk of harm. Now back to the topic - I have always taken a fair number of pictures, but after the introduction of the personal "gallery" feature (which I love), I am trying to remember to take pictures at every cache.

I just look for one of those "No" signs. If don't see one that says, “No Geocaching Without Permission” then I presume I already have adequate permission to hide the cache.

Not very long when you share a border! There is a pathway that I walk in Point Roberts, Washington, on the US Canadian border, and we always get a kick out of spitting from the U.S. into Canada! (I've never been caught). When boating in the area in question, it is very easy to cross the boundary between the U.S. and Canadian waters without consequence. A vessel crossing the boundary does not don't report at customs until it arrives at its first port.

Why can’t you American cachers get your coordinates right! It seems that a Seattle Salvage company decided to hide a huge underwater cache - the “Victoria M”, a 140 ft. derelict ship. Like good geocachers, they went to the authorities and got all the proper permits. And to make sure that the cache was going to stay well hidden, they filled it with 200 tons of concrete before sinking it at the southern entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Trouble was, they accidently used the wrong coordinates, and sank the darn thing in Canadian waters!!! Ooops. Seems that our Canadian underwater land managers are not as receptive to oversized underwater caches as their US counterparts, and they have written a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to demand that the cache be removed forthwith. They figure it is technologically feasible to move it, but could cost millions of dollars! As a kind gesture to our geographically challenged neighbours, I am going to write to our Canadian authorities to ask that it be allowed to stay - but only on the condition that they post it on Geocaching.com - where hopefully it won't be considered a "vacation cache". (The full story is here).

I am going to define “influential” as meaning, having a positive influence on these forums. Briansnat - he generally focusses on geocaching and provides a lot of helpful information and insight. I think many people are receptive to what he has to say because he writes in a non-arrogant manner (is that a word?). I am a little concerned that I have been in agreement with him too many times over the past year. Not a good sign. Criminal - he adds the perfect amount of “spice” to these forums. Carleenp - intelligent, articulate, and seems like she is a genuinely nice person, who appears to get along with everybody. (can she really be a lawyer??) There are a number of posters with whom I have disagreed with over the past year, but whom I admire anyways and they do have a positive influence - two who come to mind are Mtn.man and ju66l3r. My list would be significantly different if I included those having a negative influence on the forums - but hey its Christmas.

My initial response was going to be a quick “physical cache, of course”, but after giving it some thought, I am not so confident in my answer. I have found only three virtuals, two of which required me to locate a very specific object, and one of which took me to a viewpoint. I enjoyed all three (in fact one of them is one of my all time favorite caches) , and find it difficult to honestly say that the experiences would have been more enjoyable had there been a box and a logbook. However, I do get some pleasure from reading logbooks and having a look at the contents of a well stocked cache, so I guess that I would have to say that its likely that I might have enjoyed those three caches a little bit more had there been a physical cache at the end, but not much more. Having said that though, there is no doubt for me that a box at the end of a well located cache is not the most important part of the experience. I have not yet found a virtual cache in a lousy location - but I speculate that a virtual in a lousy location, would rank behind a physical cache in a lousy location.