Virtual Vs. Traditional; The Question Of Location

[Gecko206]

I prefer traditional caches since most virtual caches have just featured landmarks that I have seen millions of times. If you people are going to make caches like that, at least make them about things that not many people know about.

[+Tidalflame]

No offense, but this has been discussed before... I'm still sorta new to this sport, but I imagine that's one of the reasons new virtuals are currently banned.

[Gecko206]

No offense, but this has been discussed before... I'm still sorta new to this sport, but I imagine that's one of the reasons new virtuals are currently banned.

They are still being accepted, but only if they pass the strict guidelines or qualify as earthcaches. what you are thinking about is locationless caches. (reverse virtual)

Edited July 12, 2005 by Gecko1

[+BlueDeuce]

No offense, but this has been discussed before... I'm still sorta new to this sport, but I imagine that's one of the reasons new virtuals are currently banned.

They are still being accepted, but only if they pass the strict guidelines or qualify as earthcaches. what you are thinking about is locationless caches. (reverse virtual)

Which is why they are no better or worse than most approved traditional caches.

 

I think it falls into the 'personal preference' category. i.e. enough choices to go around for everybody.

[Gecko206]

I think it falls into the 'personal preference' category. i.e. enough choices to go around for everybody.

That's the point! This is a discussion.

[+BlueDeuce]

I think it falls into the 'personal preference' category. i.e. enough choices to go around for everybody.

That's the point! This is a discussion.

So want to know everyone's perference, not which is better or worse? (I hope, I hope, I hope)

 

eh, I'm a fool to think it won't turn out that way.

 

edit 2: oh wait, that's how it started.

Edited July 12, 2005 by BlueDeuce

[+Ambrosia]

I prefer traditional caches since most virtual caches have just featured landmarks that I have seen millions of times. If you people are going to make caches like that, at least make them about things that not many people know about.

Every cache should be good quality, whether it is a traditional, or a virtual.

[+StarBrand]

I perfer Physical caches but have enjoyed a few virtuals as well. I even have 1 virtual.

[+gwalt3]

The few virtuals that we have logged were in Washington D.C. and they were all very unique and worthwhile. The majority of the ones we logged were not your standard monuments or attractions and we would have never found those interesting sites without the virtuals. Our favorite was "Last stop for a weary traveler" check it out if you are ever in the area!

Edited July 12, 2005 by gwalt3

[Gecko206]

The few virtuals that we have logged were in Washington D.C.  and they were all very unique and worthwhile.  The majority of the ones we logged were not your standard monuments or attractions and we would have never found those interesting sites without the virtuals.  Our favorite was "Last stop for a weary traveler" check it out if you are ever in the area!

I have actualy been to washington dc and I will admit that it is one of the better places for virtual caches. There are dozens of small, out of the way statues that, nevertheless, have tremendous meaning. Thanks for pointing this out.

Edited July 12, 2005 by Gecko1

[+2ofHis]

I've had the pleasure of visiting several virtuals placed by the Wisconsin-famous Li'l Otter. Otter always has done a remarkable job; the virtuals are always about interesting, and obscure, facts of the area in which the caches are placed.

[+Susieiz]

I have only searched for and found 1 virtual cache and I did enjoy it and I learned something I didn't know before. So, a success!

[+Miragee]

All of the Virtual caches I have found have been interesting and informative. I have enjoyed finding them and completing the requirements, although one really required a lot of work.

 

They were things I never would have known about if they hadn't been listed on GC.com.

[+The Forester]

I've heard a geo-rumour that locationlesses may once again be allowed.

 

Any truth in the rumour?

 

If so, is it possible to file a newly created locationless in advance?

 

I've an idea for a good 'un and I'd like to reserve it if possible.

 

Cheers, The Forester

[Gecko206]

I've heard a geo-rumour that locationlesses may once again be allowed.

 

Any truth in the rumour?

 

If so, is it possible to file a newly created locationless in advance?

 

I've an idea for a good 'un and I'd like to reserve it if possible.

 

Cheers, The Forester

I have not heard of this, but perhaps Jeremy knows.

[+Polk Street Bandits]

I'm a rank noob, but I like them equally (fence sitter!). I started geocaching for the hunt, not necessarily for the cache. I also really enjoy seeing things that are around you, but you had no idea (prior to the cache) that they were there. I think both types of caches satisfy this curiosity in me.

 

Trading cache, or photgraphing the virtual, etc are just added bonuses to the total experience. I think it's important that the editors continue to place strict limitations on all caches - especially virtuals in order to maintain the overall quality. We don't need people setting up virtual caches for the Washington Monument, or the UN building as an example...

[+Team Red Oak]

I like them both too. I really don't cache for the trinkets, I just like the hunt and rarely do I trade anything, but I do like TB's. I live near D.C. and we've found 2 virtuals in DC and one in Baltimore. Since we've only lived in the area a little over a year, I really enjoy caching in general as a way to 'explore my world'. I find virtuals allow me to explore the touristy spots I might not get to and traditional caches get me out to the local parks and allow me to get to know my way around the area. If I'm going to visit a monument like any other tourist in DC, I may as well get a smiley for it, but I won't go back to a place I visited BGC (before geocaching) just to log the virtual unless I am acting as a tour guide for house guests.

[+briansnat]

I've heard a geo-rumour that locationlesses may once again be allowed.

 

Any truth in the rumour?

 

If so, is it possible to file a newly created locationless in advance?

 

I've an idea for a good 'un and I'd like to reserve it if possible.

 

Cheers,  The Forester

I have not heard of this, but perhaps Jeremy knows.

Jeremy has hinted about a pending announcement having to do with virtuals and locationless caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

Traditionals over Virtuals.

Virtuals over Multi Caches.

 

I like finding the container and looking at the contents. Even a great virtual cache (and they do exist) doesn't give you that.

[+Team Perks]

I enjoy a truly good virtual as much as a truly good traditional.

 

However, to me, a lame virtual is worse than a lame traditional.

[+fizzymagic]

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.

 

I 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.

Edited July 25, 2005 by fizzymagic

[+Bear Paughs]

We've only done one virtual so far, but we enjoyed it. We found something we didn't even know was in our area (gravemarker for a Kentucky Derby winning horse). It required a little bit of research to log the find, and the boys really enjoyed learning some history. A couple weeks later they're still asking questions about the horses. This was something that we would never have known about, unlike a monument, and was sort of quirky which made it all the more fun.

 

We also logged one locationless/reverse find so far. This was fun because we stumbled upon something they thought was pretty cool looking. But I don't think most locationless would be that exciting for them.

 

Considering we do this as a family I'd have to say our preference would be regular, but it would depend on the virtual. A really interesting and quirky virtual can be just as much fun as regular caches. Just a beautiful scene or a historic monument in and of itself wouldn't necessarily make a great virtual (for families anyway -- those without kids would probably differ in opinion.) It's got to have wow factor, and in an area abundant with beautiful scenery that means quirky and very unusual.