crtrue

A lamp post at some old gold rush town...

GCLPC1...

removed due to lack of rhyming

"Oh, yeah, Reb', this is one of my favorite caches. I try to keep an eye on it and visit it regula....hmm, it's gone..."

We could always just start a second identifier set of "vanity" IDs..a cache would have a regularly-assigned number and a vanity ID of five-ish letters and numbers that would cost, say, $10-$20. Throw them in a special set, like, VXXXXX The point here is, pay a little money, get an easy-to-recognize identifier. Of course, the big question here is...why?

One of the things that I've been seeing as of late is the assumption that any kind of micro is going to just be some park bench slap-on or, worse, an LPC placed during a lunch break. But I know from experience, and my own placements, that a micro can present a whole new dynamic to a hide. Some areas just won't support a regular cache -- anything in a city, for example, generally has to be a micro, unless the container is hidden incredibly well or imitates or hides under a large part of the environment. Some micros can take advantage of the environment -- for example, I've hidden a nice matchstick container in a large root system, and it has been so challenging, I even fail to find it for maintenance checks if someone replaces it at a different spot. Hell, some micros are there just because it's just a minimalist way to cache and the owner isn't a big fan of trading (I know I've gotten burnt out on the whole "collectable" aspect of Geocaching -- coins and such -- and I feel that micros are the answer to this). I know I can't be the only one who has an appreciation for the micro. A good, solid micro is pleasing to hide and even to hold. So let's hear it: What are some of your favorite caches that, coincidently, just so happen to be micros?

I guess this is one of the drawbacks of crafting my TBs from meat.

Hey. No vacation caching.

I like to leave highly radioactive Polonium inside of caches. I notice this isn't on your list. Does that make this okay?

Day One: "So, when do we find the gold?"

No, what you do is trade the item out and put that guy on your ignore list. Public ridicule is essentially just knocking around a wasp's nest -- it might be much more satisfying, but it brings you much grief in the process. Then again, some people really are just too paranoid and will go out of their way to be offended. Give them a nudge and never speak to them again, as they have issues that go way beyond the bounds of Geocaching and small trinket trading.

The Dilemma: A local cache is so enthusiastic, he has had forty caches approved in the past month or so, all pretty much within four miles of one another. He gets them approved in bursts, types them in all caps, and they vary from modestly hidden to just stuck in a tree. He sees a parking lot as a good hiding spot and makes me want to cry for what I used to consider a grand place to find good, quality caches by a small group of locals. Yes, I'm essentially venting. It's just frustrating to me to do a local search for new caches, and see nothing except this one person's quick tosses. He's doing it legally and they're all approved, so I can't complain about the rules, but it's still frustrating. Does anyone have any advice on how I can deal with this? Maybe meet with him and do some organized hides? Stop being such a jerk and just let the man and his kids enjoy their hids? Move to a more rural area and establish a basecamp? An "accident"?

My first cache -found- was a visitor center keyholder stuck underneath a park bench. I looked for thirty minutes, having not yet honed my Geocaching sixth sense for common hide spots. Finally, there was a little container with the words "DANGER - BLACK WIDOW TRAP" on it. I didn't want to touch it, until I noticed a "GCXXXX" note underneath that -- something I distinctly remembered from the website. I propped it open, found a log book and a Canadian dime, and just did a little dance. My first cache -hidden- was actually my third. I had found two other places, but was still a bit fresh, and they were denied due to lack of permission. I was burnt-up at this point and wanted to find a place so badly...what's this, a public boatdock hidden right downtown?....hmmm.... I placed a small first aid canister in a large patch of ruffage, assured that it was hard to identify, and went from there. I actually visited the cache later the next day, so paranoid about it being stolen (I wasn't aware of how little people generally ruffle around ruffage) and just happened to run into two of the most prolific cachers in the area, rambling about with sticks, prodding every piece of vegetation they could find. It was encouraging, because up until this point, Geocaching had just been this thing that I did alone -- people, who are like me, and aren't crazy! Neat! I've placed a few more since this, learned a lot, gotten much better at hiding than finding, etc....and I'm still in awe of my early caching days

I know you are being sarcastic. You are, arent ya? No problem if it's their own TB or coin but i would sure hope that they aren't logging other's items into the event knowing that they will be stuck there for close to a year. I have nearly 100 as yet, unreleased TB's. (mostly unactivated) I was thinking of finally releasing most of them at GW6. I just imagined one hundred cockroaches with little TB tags being released en masse at the Travel Bug tent...

I agree completely. I think the best caches don't even need to be found, as the location alone makes the trip worth it. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop looking ... I'm a bit too stubborn to start just showing up at waypoints and relaxing...

My wrist still hurts from scooping that potato salad! I learned a new respect for lunchroom workers, that much is for sure. GW6 looks to be a bit out of the way for me...but you never know. I've always been partial to road trips, and South Carolina to California sounds like an ultimate one, at that. We shall see.

One of Waymarkings oldest... and is in 7th place as largest! http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...b5-8c7adb7090f2 So it work, huh? I think the advantage of Waymarking is simply that you cna obviously avoid a category like "McDonalds" You can't really do that with Geocaching. Frankly, our cache categorization is pitiful when compared to Waymarking.

All caches already have to have this. True, but I guess what I was getting at is that even public lands might benefit from a simple "nod" from a ranger or the like. The reality is, it's almost not needed if it's publicly accessible -- the virtual would be adding nothing to the actual area, only an incentive to visit, which is usually a good thing (sensitive lands are usually closed off, anyway...and enough negative remarks about a cache messing up the land can have an impact).

So, an ideal virtual should, at the very minimum, have a plaque or some sort of marker, not to mention explicit (or at least implicit) permission from the landholder?

There's nothing wrong with valid discussion. Groundspeak removed virtuals due to a problem with them. We're trying to address the problem as best as we can, since we miss virtuals and would rather see them return than migrate to Waymarking.

Correction -- I understand that Virtuals need a higher standard because they are easier to submit. I'm making the point that a physical container alone is in no means a guarantee of a quality hide. In thinking about it, what if we approached this differently? What if a virtual had an element of a "hide" to it, requiring a real search for it? Maybe require that all virtuals have to have a physical object to be found, except as opposed to a cache, the item can be, say, a gravesite or a monument. The point here is, you're actually hunting for something, not just "taking in the air" and logging a find after doing a little research in a nearby visitor center. Of course, without a logbook, there is always the issue of proving a find. One idea I had, probably too hard to implement, is having an off-site logbook, signed to prove that you were, at least, in the area. Maybe a micro in the nearest parking lot, with the express point that it isn't a regular cache, but simply a logbook for a nearby virt'. My dream for the return of Virtuals to this site would require the finding of something at the location. The Virtual cache owner would have to require an email with the answer to the question before the cache could be logged. If a cacher did not do that, the cache owner should delete the log. There would have to be responsibilty on the part of the cache owner. Also, I think new Virtual caches should be harder to submit, much harder! Having a log nearby is simply not possible. In other threads on this subject, I posted examples of Virtuals that were many, many miles away from public land. You cannot put a container on National Park land, or on an Indian Reservation. But you also have to leave said places, usually traveling along a road or something similar. I don't think the logbook would be required for a find, but I think it could be used as almost a passive "crtrue was here" kind of device. Not signing it signifies nothing, but signing it could give a bit of weight if your find is, say, challenged by a zealous virtual owner

I think this would be much easier if we came up with a good definition of the "ideal virtual". I think it would be something permanent and notable, must not overlap with an Earthcache or an existing cache, and should only be placed at locations that would be bad locations for physical caches, such as historic markers or landmarks. I don't think the "wow factor" should even factor in, because it's obviously subjective, and each person brings something different away from a site. I think the fact that it is being nominated for a virtual alone should signify that it has some significance, and once given the run through by a reviewer and fits into the above definition, I think they would prove to be a valuable addition to gc.com

Why would a reviewer even approve a virtual at a dead bear? I mean, the only big reason I could see the addition of virtuals becoming such a problem is when reviewers just cannot keep up with the workload -- again why I think there needs to be a physical marker or monument, one with the same kind of permanence of a cache, only sans the logbook.

Correction -- I understand that Virtuals need a higher standard because they are easier to submit. I'm making the point that a physical container alone is in no means a guarantee of a quality hide. In thinking about it, what if we approached this differently? What if a virtual had an element of a "hide" to it, requiring a real search for it? Maybe require that all virtuals have to have a physical object to be found, except as opposed to a cache, the item can be, say, a gravesite or a monument. The point here is, you're actually hunting for something, not just "taking in the air" and logging a find after doing a little research in a nearby visitor center. Of course, without a logbook, there is always the issue of proving a find. One idea I had, probably too hard to implement, is having an off-site logbook, signed to prove that you were, at least, in the area. Maybe a micro in the nearest parking lot, with the express point that it isn't a regular cache, but simply a logbook for a nearby virt'.

My point wasn't that they could be counted as finds, but more for "getting credit." The present way finds are counted is really screwed up. Attend an event and it counts the same as finding a cache. Additionally, a new site that listed only non-physical "caches"--hopefully to be called something other than a "cache"--the visits would be listed separately from visits to physical caches. Waymarks could have there own category. The different sites would be broken out, but all on the same page of your profile. Besides, who cares if finds, discoveries, visits, or what have you are all combined into one "score?" It's not as if it's remotely accurate anyway except for the logs written on Groundspeak sites. None of full letterboxes are included, only the hybrids. None of the unique caches, virts, and locationlesses on other sites are included either. The count would mean the number of Groundpeak... Physical caches logged... Non-physical hunts completed... Waymarks visited... Where I Go modules played. The point of this little exercise is to explore some other possibilities. We need to break paradigms and kick the walls out on this box. But then wouldn't the logbook get wet? Seriously, though, I've absolutely loving this, and I do feel that, after going to a Virtual a few months ago and falling in love, that they deserve a presence. I don't understand the double standard that says it is alright to blanket a city in micros, but that Virtuals will somehow be a detriment to the sport. Why is this? Are people honestly all that worried about number runners that much? We already have a huge glut of physical caches in this sport -- I don't see why Virtuals would have to be held to some higher standard for each approval. Fine. If you're worried about number runners, don't count them towards the total number of finds. Divide the number of finds into three categories: Physical | Virtual | Event