Jump to content

So What Is A Virtual Cache?


SnaggleT

Recommended Posts

It has been since July 21st 2004, that a "New" Virtual cache was placed in the State of MD according to the "Seek a Cache by State" Generator located under the Hide & Seek Cache Tab. Since that time the "Guidelines" for hiding caches were updated on 2/14/05.

 

Being that the case, my wife had the intrest of submitting a "Virtual Cache" for the Ransom Train Wreck which claimed 28 lives over a 100 years ago which was recently Commemorated by a Plaque Dedicating Service which made front page news in the Carroll County Times on June 22, 2005.

 

After viewing the site and reading the series of a couple plaques, we created some questions which could only be answered by being there and submitted the cache. Basically the same M.O. as any other Virtual. However, before we had even finished adding a background URL - the cache had been archived? :o

 

The reviewer had placed this note:

Generally virtual caches are placed in locations where a traditional cache would not be allowed or would be inappropriate, since the virtual prevents a later physical cache being placed within a 0.1-mile radius of that spot. It looks like your cache description starts out as an ideal multistage cache hunt leading to a physical cache in the woods or a park, but it just doesn't get there for some reason.

 

Often a micro cache can be readily placed at or near the same spot submitted as a virtual cache. That is usually the case unless the spot is in the middle of a busy city. That would not only bring people to your special spot but gives them a physical cache to find as well.  I can show you some examples of smaller micro caches if you would like.

 

Please reference the cache name and ID number when/if you reply via e-mail.

 

NOTE: If you have any questions, do not reply to the archive note email.  Click on the link to go to the cache page and click on my name in the archive log at the bottom of the page.  You can then send me an email regarding the cache.  Please send me a link to the cache in question so I will know which cache it is regarding.

 

Thanks for your understanding,

 

mtn-man

 

OK :unsure:

 

Being so these commemorative plaques were about 65'-75' from the railroad tracks, we didn't think a physical cache could be placed as he recommended because according to the OFF-LIMITS (Physical) Caches one of the attributes is:

 

Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

 

After farther reading the guidelines again; I see the note under the Virtual Cache Description reiterates the same thing about physical caches.

 

Virtual Caches

 

A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a unique nature. The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was really there. Note, however, that new virtual cache proposals are only listed if they meet all of the conditions listed in the guidelines below. 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.

 

Note: Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it. Please keep that in mind when submitting your cache report.

 

After reading all that, I read the link for the "conditions listed in the guidelines below"

 

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail, beach, or view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are.

 

2. 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, statues 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. If you don't know if it is appropriate, contact your local reviewer first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.

 

So if a trail is a trail and a view is a view and Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches? What is left? One of the things I had enjoyed in the past which apparently will not be too much of in the future, was a simple learning experience from a plaque or monument.

 

Unfortunately, the more we try to participate by holding up our end of becoming a hider and not just a seeker the more we become discouraged. :o

Link to comment

Snagglet:

 

Is there any way you can use the plaque you referenced as a starting point for the cache, using some of the info on the plaque to figure out a set of coords for a nearby physical cache? This would be an offset and as long as the other guidelines are met, would be a pretty cool one at that.

 

You could use a date on the plaque, number of letters on the 3rd line, etc., to provide enough info to find the final stage.

 

Just a thought.

Link to comment
Virtual caches are for people that are either too lazy to put together a real cache or too unimaginative to make a creative container for the location. The only exceptions to this are National Parks and other places that do not allow geocaching.

And unusual anomolies. :unsure:

Link to comment

Robert,

Funny you would be first to respond - I had considered contacting you prior to posting this thread. Your idea is fine but, unfortunately there isn't too much open space nearby which is far enough from the tracks that isn't private property.

However, wouldn't that be a Multi? (similiar to 1st Killed at Gettyburg) and not a virtual. Which brings me back to my original question "What is a virtual". So many virtuals in the past took you to a location and hopefully taught you something. Whether it was "TheRealIronman" or "Fallen Firefighters' Memorial" You hopefully learned something and now under the new guidelines they are:

Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches?
Link to comment
Virtual caches are for people that are either too lazy to put together a real cache or too unimaginative to make a creative container for the location. The only exceptions to this are National Parks and other places that do not allow geocaching.

And unusual anomolies. :unsure:

I'll clarify my earlier comment with this one from Right Wing Wacko:

 

And if they don't allow geocaching there... why would I want to go there?

Link to comment
Virtual caches are for people that are either too lazy to put together a real cache or too unimaginative to make a creative container for the location. The only exceptions to this are National Parks and other places that do not allow geocaching.

And unusual anomolies. :o

I'll clarify my earlier comment with this one from Right Wing Wacko:

 

And if they don't allow geocaching there... why would I want to go there?

You're so right!

 

I guess my trip to Mt.Rainier for the weekend is out, now. :unsure:

Link to comment
Virtual caches are for people that are either too lazy to put together a real cache or too unimaginative to make a creative container for the location

 

Typically I would agree but knowledge is power and one shouldn't be afraid to learn. If you read the quotes

Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply
Physical cache's can't be placed there. AS for creative caches I have submitted over 4 physical caches in the last week and none have yet to be approved. If you can help I would be glad. As for lack of creativity the only cache which I have placed has gotten very good reviews for being clever. Check for yourself http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0c-4a069102bb5c

 

I understand Virtuals may not be your cup of tea - It would have been our 1st too - but you still weren't able to answer my question.

Edited by Snagglet
Link to comment
Virtual caches are for people that are either too lazy to put together a real cache or too unimaginative to make a creative container for the location

 

Typically I would agree but knowledge is power and one shouldn't be afraid to learn. If you read the quotes

Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply
Physical cache's can't be placed there. AS for creative caches I have submitted over 4 physical caches in the last week and none have yet to be approved. If you can help I would be glad. As for lack of creativity the only cache which I have placed has gotten very good reviews for being clever. Check for yourself http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0c-4a069102bb5c

 

I understand Virtuals may not be your cup of tea - It would have been our 1st too - but you still weren't able to answer my question.

Sure I did, you just chose to look past it.

 

The thread starts with something like "No new virts posted in my area in the last year, so I'm setting out to get one approved". Um, since this game is geocaching, shouldn't you be trying to get geocaches placed and only using virts as a last resort? Since a virt hasn't been approved in the last year, I'd say the reviewers are doing an outstanding job getting more geocaches approved and trying to keep virts to a minimum.

Link to comment

Correct my thread did start like that, but what constitutes a virtual cache?

 

And believe it or not - I agree with you, if nothing falls under the guidelines for them why have them? Are they to be no more?

Edited by Snagglet
Link to comment
As soon as the new functionality is complete, virtuals as we now know them will be no more.

 

Excellent now we're getting somewhere - may I ask what you are basing this on or are there guidlines for this "New Functionality" Because the current guidelines are almost contradictive of what a virtual is. I've been seeing a rise of "Earthcaches".

Link to comment
Correct my thread did start like that, but what constitutes a virtual cache?

 

And believe it or not - I agree with you, if nothing falls under the guidelines for them why have them? Are they to be no more?

I guess, perhaps National Parks? Very isolated cases that are very unique and there is no other possible way to get someone there and the reviewer approves it?

 

GC.com is in the middle of making virts a whole new way. They're testing it right now, and hopefully it will be coming out this month or next. :D

Link to comment
Because the current guidelines are almost contradictive of what a virtual is.

I disagree. Many of the early virtuals were lame. The current guidelines are an attempt to eliminate the lame, and concentrate on the outstanding. Sorry, but I don't think a plaque where a train crashed is outstanding. It seems rather ordinary to me.

 

But it does sound like the perfect place to start a multi-cache.

unfortunately there isn't too much open space nearby which is far enough from the tracks that isn't private property

Who says the final needs to be nearby? Put it a mile or two away if you have to.

Link to comment
I disagree. Many of the early virtuals were lame. The current guidelines are an attempt to eliminate the lame, and concentrate on the outstanding. Sorry, but I don't think a plaque where a train crashed is outstanding. It seems rather ordinary to me.

 

No need to be appologetic, it's understandable. The area is a remote country like setting which we were just trying to bring some intrest to. As for the Multi, by the looks of it - that's the way it's heading - We were just concerned about the proximity to the tracks (but that can be worked around too). I think if the reviewer would have been more blatant and said, " As of this date for this reason, there will be no more virtuals..." It would have been more acceptable rather then linking guidelines stating "a tree is a tree, a car is a car, a view is a view, etc... and No signs, monuments, statues, tombstones or historical markers because they are all too lame" - In my eyes that doesn't leave much because if it was that grandiose or outstanding then a sign, monument, statue, tombstone or historical marker would be there too, - which to me does contradict itself. I mean I'm not too aware of that many "outstanding" items which don't have a historical marker or monument. Why even the Grand Canyon has plaques.

Link to comment
In my eyes that doesn't leave much because if it was that grandiose or outstanding then a sign, monument, statue, tombstone or historical marker would be there too, - which to me does contradict itself.
You're mixing things. The subject of the virtual can be separate from the plaque. For an extreme example, if the train carnage was still in place, with outlines painted where bodies came to rest, that would be a unique attraction. A plaque, however, is commonplace. The words are irrelevant.

 

I mean I'm not too aware of that many "outstanding" items which don't have a historical marker or monument.
I don't think there are plaques next to each arch in Arches National Monument (yes that's NPS land, but I'm making a point). Somewhere there is a virtual of some trees that have huge boulders perched in their branches. No plaques nearby. No roads either. Or this balancing rock at Lake Tahoe. Possibly virtual cache material, but thankfully there is a physical cache there.

 

The point is not that there can't be a marker there. The point is that the object itself must is impressive. Words are just words. Should we start making virtual caches out of the literary classics? Should Moby Dick be a virtual cache? That's what you're asking for by submitting a plaque as a virtual.

 

A virtual cache has to be super-fantastic, knock-your-socks-off, never-been-seen-before-unique, and in a place where a physical cache can't be placed. There are still a few places like that around. But not many.

Link to comment

A virtual cache has to be super-fantastic, knock-your-socks-off, never-been-seen-before-unique, and in a place where a physical cache can't be placed.

There are still a few places like that around. But not many.

 

Then please consider being more frank and brutal about it in the guidelines and say that the odds of getting a virtual approved are nearly zero if they are even that good. This has been the case now for a long time (well, "long" in geocaching years) yet the new folks continue to cling to the hope they can get one approved on the fabled "wow factor".

 

I agree that the virtual situation was getting out of hand as every historical marker and every sign really didn't need to be a virt. The current criteria for a virt make them approximately impossible to get approved, yet they don't flat out say that. So please think about saving everyone the work of creating virts, the reviewers the effort of saying "no", the endless forum threads on the subject, and just plain remove them from the guidelines and the pick lists and treat them as historic artifacts like Project Ape caches.

 

Personally, I'd have welcomed the honesty of just saying "no" to virts (and locationless) for the last two years instead of the ongoing "a replacement is due real soon now and if you try really really hard you might get one approved" situation. I really think it'd have made for less grumbling from the enlisted men.

 

(And I still don't get why virtuals are bad because the heart of the sport is in finding a container with a logbook but Earthcaches without a logbook or a container are good, but that's a different rant - my goal here is to put a bullet in the head of virts until they can be born again.)

Link to comment
A virtual cache has to be super-fantastic, knock-your-socks-off, never-been-seen-before-unique,...

And why are we not holding all other cache types to these lofty standards?

 

I have seen lots of neat virtuals as well as a few that are somewhat lame. In my opinion, the proportion of good to bad is much greater for virtuals than for 35mm film canister caches.

Link to comment
Robert,

Funny you would be first to respond - I had considered contacting you prior to posting this thread. Your idea is fine but, unfortunately there isn't too much open space nearby which is far enough from the tracks that isn't private property. However, wouldn't that be a Multi? (similiar to 1st Killed at Gettyburg) and not a virtual.

It would be a multi if there was a container at the first spot, I'd consider it an offset if you're going to one location and using info there to get to the second spot. Others may do it differently, but since you'll need to do some figuring to get the second set, I'd use the ? icon for the cache type. Up to you, though. And the final stage can be farther away than where you can see, but I'd caution against placing it outside of the park/area unless there's a cool way to tie the final destination in with the first somehow. Just be careful how far it is away if it is outside the park/area the plaque is in.

 

Good luck.

 

:D

Link to comment
A virtual cache has to be super-fantastic, knock-your-socks-off, never-been-seen-before-unique,...

And why are we not holding all other cache types to these lofty standards?

 

I have seen lots of neat virtuals as well as a few that are somewhat lame. In my opinion, the proportion of good to bad is much greater for virtuals than for 35mm film canister caches.

Easy, this game is geocaching. To play this game, just leave a container with a logbook somewhere that can be found using your GPSr.

 

Honestly, do you bring your baseball glove to a soccer game? :D

Link to comment

Currently, Virtual is both a cache type and a container size. If the approver rejects your Virtual (as type) cache, you can just submit it as a Traditional cache in a Virtual container . You can also have a Multi cache in a Virtual container. :D

Link to comment
Currently, Virtual is both a cache type and a container size. If the approver rejects your Virtual (as type) cache, you can just submit it as a Traditional cache in a Virtual container . You can also have a Multi cache in a Virtual container. :D

You can hammer a nail into your own head too, but it is neither smart nor useful.

Link to comment

Honestly, do you bring your baseball glove to a soccer game?

If the guy running the soccer game told me that baseballs might be involved in how he plays soccer, I would.

 

This is clearly becoming a very moot point because my guess is that the guidelines will be extremely overhauled to incorporate this new feature for virts/locationless.

 

A year ago or so, it would have been really important to stress the extremely rare cases that virtuals are a "part of this game". At the time, I posted a really clear and applauded revision to the guidelines that never went anywhere...but would have given a much worse impression on trying to get virtuals approved.

 

Instead, we still have the wishy-washy stance that leads to situations like this.

 

Regardless of how they got there or how much you don't like it, virtuals are a part of this game too. Their utility in today's expansion of the game is just poorly written into the game's guidelines.

Link to comment

WOW seems I've missed a bit.

Sorry my body needed sleep. It's hard for us East Coast Seekers to stay Up with you West Coast Seekers. None-the-less, I can honestly say that according to the "Guidelines", I have yet to find a factual concrete answer which satisfies my question. Many people have responded with their opinions, what they think of virtuals and with "Grandfathered" caches listings as examples.

Unfortunately, when I submitted the cache (3 days ago), I selected the "Virtual" option strictly on the fact that due to the "item" I wanted people to locate was "Off-Limits" according to physical caches and because the option was there to do so. I was unaware that it was next to impossible to have it listed.

Caching only for about a year, I still consider myself a rookie, but I wanted to try to contribute to this "Sport". I realize that this global game draws all walks of life and not everyone will agree on certain topics and have favorites of what they feel is right or suites them best. I'm not sure how the rest of you got intrested in this sport but for me, It was the fact that someone placed something, or knew of something which they wanted to share with others and it was up to me to find. To me, it was more about the Hunt and Finding what needed to be found in a spot where I probably never been too before or would have been too at all. It didn't matter if I was looking for "Words that were just Words" or Tiny Magnetic Keyholders or Soaked Tupperware Containers or Well Stocked Ammo Boxes. To quote "Joelscapes" a person who captivated my interest in the sport "It's the Hunt that Counts" Even people who despise Virtuals (GPSaxaphone :rolleyes: ), being like myself, have found them because they were there to be found! My personal preferences are Mysteries because they excercise the mind as well as the body.

 

I believe ju66l3r summed it up the best:

ju66l3r Posted on Jul 7 2005, 10:56 AM

 

Regardless of how they got there or how much you don't like it, virtuals are a part of this game too. Their utility in today's expansion of the game is just poorly written into the game's guidelines. 

 

So if they are no longer going to be part of the game, then remove the option to place them until the issue is resolved. Because for rookie Hiders, like myself, it discourages them from attempting to place caches of any type. I mean if you can't even get a lame Virtual posted how will you ever design an over imaginative well creative cache? Perhaps if "Virtuals" are to be killed, then a new type could be created to take there place such as an "INFO Quest" Cache which would require the finders to submit certain information which could only be found at the destination. Maybe this would bring a whole new group of individuals who may be disabled (i.e. Wheelchair) to be able to participate. We should be thankful that this unique "sport" is open to everyone and anyone who just wants to seek out a quest of their own and doesn't have to be an "athlete" to do so. Perhaps another type of cache could be a tourist cache - specifically designed to show certain areas of your state. Like I stated previously, to me, "Geocaching" was about the hunt and finding what the creator of the cache wanted you to find - if you chose to look for it. If you didn't like that type of cache you don't need to find it but being it's there to find you probably will. Finally, being so that this is America and we are so diverse - I feel that the creator of the cache should be able to place their creation as they see fit as long as it meets safety and practical standards or guidelines and is not strongly offensive. Having someone determine whether they think something is WOW or Awsome or Lame is censorship. Perhaps the reviewer who denies a Monument at the 911 Pentagon Site would say "It's rather ordinary" but to the creator of that cache whose Uncle perished in the blaze that Monument means alot and they would like to honor them in some way other then a cache box.

 

As for me, I've said more then enough and now that additional fuel has been placed on the fire - it's time to leave and watch this topic burn! :anibad:

Link to comment
WOW seems I've missed a bit.

Sorry my body needed sleep. It's hard for us East Coast Seekers to stay Up with you West Coast Seekers. None-the-less, I can honestly say that according to the "Guidelines", I have yet to find a factual concrete answer which satisfies my question. Many people have responded with their opinions, what they think of virtuals and with "Grandfathered" caches listings as examples.

Unfortunately, when I submitted the cache (3 days ago), I selected the "Virtual" option strictly on the fact that due to the "item" I wanted people to locate was "Off-Limits" according to physical caches and because the option was there to do so. I was unaware that it was next to impossible to have it listed.

Caching only for about a year, I still consider myself a rookie, but I wanted to try to contribute to this "Sport". I realize that this global game draws all walks of life and not everyone will agree on certain topics and have favorites of what they feel is right or suites them best. I'm not sure how the rest of you got intrested in this sport but for me, It was the fact that someone placed something, or knew of something which they wanted to share with others and it was up to me to find. To me, it was more about the Hunt and Finding what needed to be found in a spot where I probably never been too before or would have been too at all. It didn't matter if I was looking for "Words that were just Words" or Tiny Magnetic Keyholders or Soaked Tupperware Containers or Well Stocked Ammo Boxes. To quote "Joelscapes" a person who captivated my interest in the sport "It's the Hunt that Counts" Even people who despise Virtuals (GPSaxaphone :blink: ), being like myself, have found them because they were there to be found! My personal preferences are Mysteries because they excercise the mind as well as the body.

 

I believe ju66l3r summed it up the best:

ju66l3r Posted on Jul 7 2005, 10:56 AM

 

Regardless of how they got there or how much you don't like it, virtuals are a part of this game too. Their utility in today's expansion of the game is just poorly written into the game's guidelines. 

 

So if they are no longer going to be part of the game, then remove the option to place them until the issue is resolved. Because for rookie Hiders, like myself, it discourages them from attempting to place caches of any type. I mean if you can't even get a lame Virtual posted how will you ever design an over imaginative well creative cache? Perhaps if "Virtuals" are to be killed, then a new type could be created to take there place such as an "INFO Quest" Cache which would require the finders to submit certain information which could only be found at the destination. Maybe this would bring a whole new group of individuals who may be disabled (i.e. Wheelchair) to be able to participate. We should be thankful that this unique "sport" is open to everyone and anyone who just wants to seek out a quest of their own and doesn't have to be an "athlete" to do so. Perhaps another type of cache could be a tourist cache - specifically designed to show certain areas of your state. Like I stated previously, to me, "Geocaching" was about the hunt and finding what the creator of the cache wanted you to find - if you chose to look for it. If you didn't like that type of cache you don't need to find it but being it's there to find you probably will. Finally, being so that this is America and we are so diverse - I feel that the creator of the cache should be able to place their creation as they see fit as long as it meets safety and practical standards or guidelines and is not strongly offensive. Having someone determine whether they think something is WOW or Awsome or Lame is censorship. Perhaps the reviewer who denies a Monument at the 911 Pentagon Site would say "It's rather ordinary" but to the creator of that cache whose Uncle perished in the blaze that Monument means alot and they would like to honor them in some way other then a cache box.

 

As for me, I've said more then enough and now that additional fuel has been placed on the fire - it's time to leave and watch this topic burn! :unsure:

Actually, there already *IS* a virual at the 9/11 Pentagon memorial, so I would expect a new one to be denied.

 

And as someone who knows several disabled geocachers, I think most would find your comment that the only thing they are capable of finding is lame virtuals highly offensive. I have yet to hear any one of the many disabled geocachers out here say anything close to "Gee, I wish they would approve more driveby virtuals for us!".

Nope. The only thing I've ever heard them complain about was people who don't properly rate the terrain on physical caches.

Link to comment

The word "perhaps" at the beginning of the sentence you are referring too, implies a possible hypothetical situation. As for the virTual cache already at the site - I'm happy for it. Maybe one day I'll check it out - if it remains.

 

As for your comment about disabled cachers only able to find lame virtuals - you are probably correct, they would take offense - However, nothing I wrote ever said that - sorry you interpreted it as so. I think I would have written it like you did, if I meant it to be taken that way.

 

I do like your concept of drive by caches though. It could have possibilites. :unsure:

Edited by Snagglet
Link to comment

Bummer - someone always has to twist words around somehow to stir the pot.

jul66l3r said it best:

 

ju66l3r Posted on Jul 7 2005, 10:56 AM

  This is clearly becoming a very moot point because my guess is that the guidelines will be extremely overhauled to incorporate this new feature for virts/locationless.

 

There's no definative answer here - so just drop the topic. :blink::unsure:

Link to comment

My parents used to tell me never to discuss religion or politics in public. When I have this discussion with my children, I'm going to add Virtual Caches to the list. It seems everyone has a strong opinion about them.

 

I can understand why the “purists” believe that due to their very name, caches should be physical containers. I generally prefer these as well and the kids love exchanging trade items. However, some of my favorite caches have been virtual caches, particularly those that encouraged me to stop along the road to see something I never would have slowed down for otherwise. Without virtuals I never would have visited Doc Holiday’s grave, the red dirt in the bottom of the Grand Canyon, that huge oak tree in Jacksonville, or the giant statue of Mark Twain along the Mississippi in Hannibal.

 

Sometimes, visiting an interesting place and learning something about the local history is more fun than finding a 35mm film canister in a cedar tree.

 

Two weeks ago we participated in our first event cache. We had a wonderful time and yes, the subject of virtuals came up. Thankfully, our conversations were much more civil than those in this forum. Perhaps that's because most of the cachers in attendance represent the silent majority, and enjoy an occasional virtual.

 

A few years ago a new Hooters restaurant opened for business in our community. Most residents didn’t care. Some were so excited they could hardly wait for the grand opening. A small group of feminists picketed across the street, condemning Hooters for being sexist and degrading to women. The picketers made the evening news and the Mayor of our fair city was interviewed for the story. She stated, “It’s very simple. If you are offended by Hooters, don’t eat there.”

 

If you don’t enjoy virtual caches, don’t visit them. I believe virtual caches add to the fun and hope they aren’t eliminated. Let's work together to make GeoCaching more fun, for more people.

Link to comment
If you don’t enjoy virtual caches, don’t visit them. I believe virtual caches add to the fun and hope they aren’t eliminated. Let's work together to make GeoCaching more fun, for more people.

They won't be. It's been a long discussed topic that the virts and locationless WILL BE revamped, and based on the posts of a few here it seems we're close to the new implementation.

 

No worries!

Link to comment
Virtual caches are for people that are either too lazy to put together a real cache or too unimaginative to make a creative container for the location. The only exceptions to this are National Parks and other places that do not allow geocaching.

Interesting statement for someone who is a forum mod and has 37 virtual cache finds. If those 37 people hadn't been too lazy to hide a real cache you would not have had them to find. So name calling is now a part of being a forum mod? It doesnt matter if its the OT forum or the General forum Name calling is name calling and you should be setting the example not providing work for the mods of this forum.

 

If you think virtuals are that bad why dont you change your 37 finds to notes?

Link to comment
Virtual caches are for people that are either too lazy to put together a real cache or too unimaginative to make a creative container for the location. The only exceptions to this are National Parks and other places that do not allow geocaching.

Interesting statement for someone who is a forum mod and has 37 virtual cache finds. If those 37 people hadn't been too lazy to hide a real cache you would not have had them to find. So name calling is now a part of being a forum mod? It doesnt matter if its the OT forum or the General forum Name calling is name calling and you should be setting the example not providing work for the mods of this forum.

 

If you think virtuals are that bad why dont you change your 37 finds to notes?

AMEN

Link to comment
So name calling is now a part of being a forum mod? It doesnt matter if its the OT forum or the General forum Name calling is name calling and you should be setting the example not providing work for the mods of this forum.

 

If you think virtuals are that bad why dont you change your 37 finds to notes?

<snicker>

 

/me knows LaPaglia's old secret identity...

 

:laughing:

Link to comment
So name calling is now a part of being a forum mod? It doesnt matter if its the OT forum or the General forum Name calling is name calling and you should be setting the example not providing work for the mods of this forum.

 

If you think virtuals are that bad why dont you change your 37 finds to notes?

<snicker>

 

/me knows LaPaglia's old secret identity...

 

:anibad:

Its not a secret. :laughing:

Link to comment
As for me, I've said more then enough and now that additional fuel has been placed on the fire - it's time to leave and watch this topic burn! :laughing:

You do realize as the original topic starter that if you use the popcorn icon during the discussion - it automatically invalidates any position, logical or illogical, that you make, right? Just checking.

Link to comment

As someone who has whined and moaned a certain amount about some of the guidelines surrounding virtuals, I can see all thirteen sides of the discussion.

 

For the most part, I (gasp!) agree with Jeremy that virtuals are not "real" caches. I generally avoid virtuals if there are physical caches in an area; the main exceptions for me have been the excellent virtuals on the Mall in Washington DC and virtuals done while traveling to distant places where I didn't have the transportation required to do the nearby physical caches.

 

My preference is always for a physical cache, if that is possible.

 

That said, though, I think it is a unfair to say that virtuals are only placed by lazy cachers, or that they belong at waypoints.org and not on geocaching.com.

 

The wonderful thing that is absolutely unique about geocaching.com, and is not shared by other sites having lists of waypoints to interesting things, is that here you get to share the experience of finding the place with others. Indeed, that is one of the things I like best about geocaching -- telling the story of finding the cache, whether physical or not. Like it or not, competing geocaching sites have not done as good a job as this one for that part of the sport.

 

So I support moving virtuals and locationless caches to another section of some kind. I'd be delighted to remove all my virtual finds from my find count; I already did that a couple of years ago for my locationless caches, when the first stirrings of a "new solution" were beginning to emerge.

 

I am seriously considering converting both of my own virts into physical caches, even though I own the only (to my knowledge) virt out there that has a logbook you have to sign! But the process is not as simple as it may sound; my other virt is set up so that people have to learn some interesting history online to log it. Integrating that into a physical cache is non-trivial.

 

I still believe virtual caches would be an excellent solution for introducing caching into areas of the world that have no caches now. That is why I feel so strongly about the ban on long-distance virtuals. I was recently on a cruise that stopped at Acapulco. I was all excited to do some caching there, to explore the city and see interesting things that I would never find on my own. Unfortunately, Acapulco, a city of 1.5 million people, has zero (zilch, none, nil) caches. Well, OK, there was one, but it had pretty clearly gone missing. A couple of virtual caches in interesting spots might help in getting things started there; then again, maybe not.

 

I am, along with everyone else, eagerly awaiting The New Solution, whatever it is. I just hope that it preserves those features of virtual caches that I find valuable, and that when it appears we don't all feel cheated that we didn't get to participate in setting its parameters and ground rules!

Link to comment
Jeremy Posted on Jul 8 2005, 01:24 PM

  QUOTE (Snagglet @ Jul 7 2005, 04:26 PM)

As for me, I've said more then enough and now that additional fuel has been placed on the fire - it's time to leave and watch this topic burn! 

 

You do realize as the original topic starter that if you use the popcorn icon during the discussion - it automatically invalidates any position, logical or illogical, that you make, right? Just checking. 

 

Sorry - I missed the directions on that - like I said, I am a rookie with a question. As for position - I'm truly NEUTRAL - I asked a question for confirmation (which the reviewer suggested I should do for clarity) and instead of receiving an answer I received opinions - I have no control of that. If their are no more Virtuals - Great - change the finds to notes (like a previous person said - I'll keep my experience forever and if virtuals are too remain I'm sure I'll hunt for another. ) However, if in someone's "opinion" they want to twist around what I've said - I'll sit my popcorn down for a moment.

 

Since I was unaware that this was an ongoing topic issue, prior to my knowledge of it, I will gladly close it because I truly didn't find the answer. Thank you all.

 

B):laughing::anibad:B)

Edited by Snagglet
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...