Virtuals, Cacheless & Other Banned Caches

[firefish]

I'm confused. After reading the guidelines for placing a cache, and other places on the website, I placed first a virtual cache, then a puzzle cache. My intention was to bring people to a beautiful spot and answer some questions which would give them a nice experience. No logbook, but answer a question to prove they were there (just as the description of a Virtual says, the location is the reward for the hunt).

 

My submissions were shot down because "cacheless" caches are no longer allowed since 2003. Why isn't there a clear note indicating that Virtual caches are no longer allowed in the description of a Virtual cache? Guidelines? Why is it possible to classify a posting as a Virtual per drop down menu?

 

I know they are planning a separate website for this (actually, I found that one already exists), but why not just make it clear from the beginning to save people time from coming up with a thoughtful idea, only to never have a chance of having it posted?

 

So, does this mean that webcam, benchmark, earth, locationless, and mystery/puzzle caches (without containers) are also similarly denied posting? If not, why not? If so, why not state that?

 

I'm disappointed not just because I put in time to come up with something just to have it denied (twice), but because I have found I enjoy a variety of finds, and the virtuals I have found are pleasant surprises. I wonder if cache postings are actually limited to just regular and multi caches at this site having to go to several separate sites (when they exist) to get different types of caches?

 

Anyone who can shed light on this?

[+briansnat]

My submissions were shot down because "cacheless" caches are no longer allowed since 2003.

 

Someone gave you bad information, as this is simply not true. Dozens of virtuals have been approved since 2003.

 

Why isn't there a clear note indicating that Virtual caches are no longer allowed in the description of a Virtual cache? Guidelines?

 

From the guidelines:

 

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 in mind physical caches are the prime goal when submitting your cache report.

 

and...

 

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?” Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

 

and...

 

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.

 

Did your submission meet those requirements? Was there no way a real cache could have been placed there, or the object be incorporated into a real cache? Passing that test, did the object have a high "wow factor" or was it a garden variety memorial or historic marker?

Edited August 13, 2005 by briansnat

[+CO Admin]

My submissions were shot down because "cacheless" caches are no longer allowed since 2003. Why isn't there a clear note indicating that Virtual caches are no longer allowed in the description of a Virtual cache? Guidelines? Why is it possible to classify a posting as a Virtual per drop down menu? 

See thats not what the reviewer said. one of the things the reviewer said was

 

Virtuals are still an available option

he then went on to say they were not easy to get (paraphrased).

 

The reviewer did explain that if you could place a cache or use it as an offset or Multi-cache your Virtual would not fly (again Paraphrased).

 

The reviewer wrote you a well written post, 2 in fact. The information he gave you was from the guidelines with a little bit of extra information to help you understand.

 

Your virtual cache was too general in the first place. It would not have qualified even if you could not have placed a cache in the area. Re-read the guidelines and the email that the reviewer sent you. It will help you understand how to create a virtual that meets the guideline and can be listed.

 

If you would like to email me I would be happy to go over your cache with you and help you to understand why it was not listed.

 

CO Admin.

 

For those counting I paraphrased because its 5:19 am and I didn't have permission from the reviewer or the OP to post the entire email. I really didn't want to wake the reviewer up to ask if I could post his entire e-mail.

Edited August 13, 2005 by CO Admin

[CoyoteRed]

I really didn't want to wake the reviewer up to ask if I could post his entire e-mail.

How would you know what his email said?

[Keystone]

I really didn't want to wake the reviewer up to ask if I could post his entire e-mail.

How would you know what his email said?

Many reviewers copy the text of all e-mails exchanged, and paste them into reviewer notes, so that they become a part of the "permanent record" for a cache page.

[CoyoteRed]

I really didn't want to wake the reviewer up to ask if I could post his entire e-mail.

How would you know what his email said?

Many reviewers copy the text of all e-mails exchanged, and paste them into reviewer notes, so that they become a part of the "permanent record" for a cache page.

Gotcha!

[+Team Cotati]

I'm confused. After reading the guidelines for placing a cache, and other places on the website, I placed first a virtual cache, then a puzzle cache. My intention was to bring people to a beautiful spot and answer some questions which would give them a nice experience. No logbook, but answer a question to prove they were there (just as the description of a Virtual says, the location is the reward for the hunt).

 

My submissions were shot down because "cacheless" caches are no longer allowed since 2003. Why isn't there a clear note indicating that Virtual caches are no longer allowed in the description of a Virtual cache? Guidelines? Why is it possible to classify a posting as a Virtual per drop down menu?

 

I know they are planning a separate website for this (actually, I found that one already exists), but why not just make it clear from the beginning to save people time from coming up with a thoughtful idea, only to never have a chance of having it posted?

 

So, does this mean that webcam, benchmark, earth, locationless, and mystery/puzzle caches (without containers) are also similarly denied posting? If not, why not? If so, why not state that?

 

I'm disappointed not just because I put in time to come up with something just to have it denied (twice), but because I have found I enjoy a variety of finds, and the virtuals I have found are pleasant surprises. I wonder if cache postings are actually limited to just regular and multi caches at this site having to go to several separate sites (when they exist) to get different types of caches?

 

Anyone who can shed light on this?

Add this qualifier to your question for a slightly more revealing truth: "How many Virtual Caches have been approved and are still listed in here that have approval dates between June 2004 and today August 13, 2005".

[+The Leprechauns]

More than 200.

[+Team Cotati]

More than 200.

WOW, that's mighty interesting. How'd you get that number?

[+Hemlock]

Pocket Query.

[+Team Cotati]

On average about one every other day? How'd you get a PQ to give that result? I must have made an error in mine.

[+The Leprechauns]

Select all the states by holding down the shift key and clicking at the end of the list. And select "placed between" June 1, 2004 and today. This will return something like 220 virtual caches. There might be a few more if you merged that with a list of all countries.

[+Hemlock]

There might be a few more if you merged that with a list of all countries.

Since "none" is one of the states listed, as long as it is selected with the others, all the caches in other countries without states will be included, too. No need to run a separate PQ.

[+Team Cotati]

I get 12. USA only. Strange. But I did limit my search to a radius of 2500mi. from Lawrence, KS. Perhaps that explains my error, eh?

Edited August 14, 2005 by Team Cotati

[+Hemlock]

Make sure you don't specify an origin.

[+Team Cotati]

Make sure you don't specify an origin.

That gives me 130. USA only. Not bad, eh?

Edited August 14, 2005 by Team Cotati

[+Team Cotati]

GCP7K0, gotta tell ya, just don't see the WOW Factor at work.

[firefish]

Thanks to all who posted a response. The reviewer did give good explanation, and indicated I could post this cache to the virtual cache site when it was up and running and I will wait until that site comes available to do that. I did appreciate the thoughtfulness and completeness of the reviewer's response. My query (and this response) are not meant to be argumentative or rude but to provide feedback.

 

A lot of confusion could be completely avoided (and a lot less time spent on creating or reviewing a cache that won't have a chance of being "accepted") if, when looking at the description of a virtual, and about hiding caches if the very first sentence is: "Virtual caches, or other "cacheless" caches (if true) are no longer accepted at this site since 2003. Please see (website name) if you wish to post a virual cache." Or, something similar. That way, no one needs to read through several areas of the guidelines and still think it will work. Why not just say it up front?

 

So, if virtuals, because they don't have a container, are not allowed to get back to the "roots" of geocaching, what about the other "cacheless" caches, like earthcaches, benchmarks, etc. I guess I am just trying to figure out in advance what is actually acceptable at this site, and if the types of caches that will exist here in the future are only cache hides I have a cache in mind and a location, (one with a cache container and logbook, etc! ) So, I will probably hide something soon. Or, at least I hope to.

 

As for "WOW" factor, this one has as much WOW as any other virtual I've found, and certainly as much or more than caches I've found. If you haven't actually been there, it would be hard to judge that. Actually, I didn't think of putting a cache here as I felt it would be unlikely that it would survive the elements (including extreme wind) at this location. But, mostly, I didn't do a lot of searching for what might be a close-by cache hide site, because prior to submitting the cache, I really had no clue that it would be a problem, since I had no way of knowing that in 2003 virtuals were no longer accepted.

 

I don't make the rules and I know people put in a lot of effort to make this fun for everyone and that is terrific and appreciated. I am not an exclusionary person by nature, so my confusion stems from that. I guess I figure, "why not?" As long as it isn't a manhole cover every 10 feet. If server space is an issue, sure, things have to be limited in some way - but why not just say only cache hides, with very special exception, are acceptable? If someone doesn't want to look for virtuals, it is pretty easy to avoid punching in the coordinates.

 

Anyway, it's been a few days since I've logged a find. Time to get the GPS unit out and get to work!

 

Cache On, Comrades!

[+Happy Bubbles]

"Virtual caches, or other "cacheless" caches (if true) are no longer accepted at this site since 2003. Please see (website name) if you wish to post a virual cache."

But they ARE accepted. Just under circumstances that got much more strict since 2003. Saying that they aren't accepted wouldn't be accurate.

 

As for the "wow factor" comparing favorably with other virtuals, keep in mind that the new guidelines were put in place because so many of the old virtuals weren't wowing at all.

[+caderoux]

GCP7K0, gotta tell ya, just don't see the WOW Factor at work.

Sure doesn't look like it from the description or the logs, but who knows.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Thanks to all who posted a response. The reviewer did give good explanation, and indicated I could post this cache to the virtual cache site when it was up and running and I will wait until that site comes available to do that. I did appreciate the thoughtfulness and completeness of the reviewer's response. My query (and this response) are not meant to be argumentative or rude but to provide feedback.

 

A lot of confusion could be completely avoided (and a lot less time spent on creating or reviewing a cache that won't have a chance of being "accepted") if, when looking at the description of a virtual, and about hiding caches if the very first sentence is: "Virtual caches, or other "cacheless" caches (if true) are no longer accepted at this site since 2003. Please see (website name) if you wish to post a virual cache." Or, something similar. That way, no one needs to read through several areas of the guidelines and still think it will work. Why not just say it up front?

 

So, if virtuals, because they don't have a container, are not allowed to get back to the "roots" of geocaching, what about the other "cacheless" caches, like earthcaches, benchmarks, etc. I guess I am just trying to figure out in advance what is actually acceptable at this site, and if the types of caches that will exist here in the future are only cache hides I have a cache in mind and a location, (one with a cache container and logbook, etc! ) So, I will probably hide something soon. Or, at least I hope to.

 

As for "WOW" factor, this one has as much WOW as any other virtual I've found, and certainly as much or more than caches I've found. If you haven't actually been there, it would be hard to judge that. Actually, I didn't think of putting a cache here as I felt it would be unlikely that it would survive the elements (including extreme wind) at this location. But, mostly, I didn't do a lot of searching for what might be a close-by cache hide site, because prior to submitting the cache, I really had no clue that it would be a problem, since I had no way of knowing that in 2003 virtuals were no longer accepted.

 

I don't make the rules and I know people put in a lot of effort to make this fun for everyone and that is terrific and appreciated. I am not an exclusionary person by nature, so my confusion stems from that. I guess I figure, "why not?" As long as it isn't a manhole cover every 10 feet. If server space is an issue, sure, things have to be limited in some way - but why not just say only cache hides, with very special exception, are acceptable? If someone doesn't want to look for virtuals, it is pretty easy to avoid punching in the coordinates.

 

Anyway, it's been a few days since I've logged a find. Time to get the GPS unit out and get to work!

 

Cache On, Comrades!

Virtuals are accepted as long as they meet the guidelines.

 

Can you place a physical cache there? If yes, no virts allowed. That solves 95% of the virtual caching problem. Place a physical cache there and it will likely be approved.

 

If you can't place a physical cache there (even a cleverly disguised container that muggles wouldn't notice), then you proceed to the next step. Does the object itself make visitors say "WOW!" or is it "Just another monument, marker, statue, plaque, etc". If your object doesn't have this "WOW!" factor, then why do you want to bring geocachers there? The history of the object or location is not enough in most cases to satisfy the "WOW!" requirement. Sure, the history is interesting and there might not be a lot of people that know it happened at that precise location, but that's only going to excite the history buffs, not your average geocacher. There's more to "WOW!" than just history.

 

Also, the "WOW!" can not be the view from that location. "A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view, but a trail/beach/view is not a virtual cache"

 

Of course, now that the Waymarking site opened today, this likely doesn't matter anyway. Go submit your historical locations over there.

[+KoosKoos]

If ever an example was needed about how this gets out of hand...the new Waymarking category:

 

McDonald's Restaurants more detail

 

Any McDonald's restaurant location across the globe can be recorded here. It doesn't matter if it's a standalone building or a watered-down version sitting inside of a Home Depot. If you see the golden arches, post it here.

[+One of the Texas Vikings]

My submissions were shot down because "cacheless" caches are no longer allowed since 2003.

I was told the same thing. No virtuals are allowed in Texas, since 2003.

I was also told that there was nothing spectacular about a 350 y/o tree.

 

Maybe that is true in northern Calif. But, how many 350 y/o trees has this reviewer seen in the Gulf Coast ?

[+The Leprechauns]

If ever an example was needed about how this gets out of hand...the new Waymarking category:

 

McDonald's Restaurants more detail

 

Any McDonald's restaurant location across the globe can be recorded here. It doesn't matter if it's a standalone building or a watered-down version sitting inside of a Home Depot. If you see the golden arches, post it here.

As a locationless geocache, yes that would be "out of hand." I shouldn't earn a smiley for stopping off for a Big Mac after hiking five miles to find a geocache. Also, it'd be commercial, and geocaching is a non-commercial activity.

 

But what you're quoting is a Waymark category. In that separate site, it's very useful to have the locations catalogued for things like diners, brewpubs, fast food and the other places where I'm likely to want to stop during a geocaching roadtrip. It's like the Yellow Pages for GPS users!

 

Separate game, separate concepts.

[+The Leprechauns]

My submissions were shot down because "cacheless" caches are no longer allowed since 2003.

I was told the same thing. No virtuals are allowed in Texas, since 2003.

I was also told that there was nothing spectacular about a 350 y/o tree.

 

Maybe that is true in northern Calif. But, how many 350 y/o trees has this reviewer seen in the Gulf Coast ?

Trot on over to the Waymarking forum and propose that you become the owner for the "Really Old Trees" waymark category!

[+One of the Texas Vikings]

Of course, now that the Waymarking site opened today, this likely doesn't matter anyway. Go submit your historical locations over there. [/color]

This is kind of harsh, don't you think ????

[+sept1c_tank]

GCP7K0, gotta tell ya, just don't see the WOW Factor at work. 

Sure doesn't look like it from the description or the logs, but who knows.

Wow! I say, wow!

I see, wow!

 

There must be a dead body hidden there.

[+sept1c_tank]

... It's like the Yellow Pages for GPS users! 

Can you imagine a yellow page book listing all the McDonalds; we're talking Congressional Record league.

 

I just ventured into the new website. Interesting, but where are the smilies?

 

There's a cool new category: Pikachu Sightings.

Can anybody guess who manages that category?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Of course, now that the Waymarking site opened today, this likely doesn't matter anyway. Go submit your historical locations over there. [/color]

This is kind of harsh, don't you think ????

Not when taken in context with the rest of the post. Just because something is historical doesn't mean it has that "WOW!" factor to make a virtual cache out of it.

 

Waymarks don't have to have "WOW!", so now you can record those places on the new site.

[Pto]

WOW factor....

As in, WOW - they finally did something .

 

I guess I'll have to wait till it opens to the public....

[+Harry Dolphin]

I do virtuals and locationlesses because they're part of geocaching. I have no interest in other sites, whether it be waypointing, or terrasearching. There's enough here to keep me busy. I will say that there has been a lack of 'Wow' in most of the virtuals that I've done. Of course, the same is true of taditional caches. Locationless I find interesting, if well maintained. And that seems to be the problem there. A roof is not a pyramid. A brand name is not a misspelled sign. If the requiremet is a 'street sign', then a street sign must be included. They've become cheap. Maintenance seems to have improved, but I could probably take a picture of my toe, and post it on a few locationless caches. But exile to the gulag of waypointing.com seems to be avoiding the issue, rather than addressing it. Ah, well, they were fun while they lasted. I will not be visiting waypointing.com.

I do enjoy benchmarking (even it the database has not been updated in sevaral years.) In many ways, more challenging than geocaching. Might be there, might not. Check and see. Just found one that had not been logged in 71 years!

[+The Leprechauns]

I will not be visiting waypointing.com.

I do enjoy benchmarking (even it the database has not been updated in sevaral years.) In many ways, more challenging than geocaching. Might be there, might not. Check and see. Just found one that had not been logged in 71 years!

You've just cut off your nose to spite your face. I predict that numerous benchmark-type Waymark Categories will be added. There's already one for "trigpoints" which are the UK equivalent of benchmarks. Why not lobby to become the category owner for New Jersey State Survey markers (if there is such a thing)?

[+Harry Dolphin]

You've just cut off your nose to spite your face. I predict that numerous benchmark-type Waymark Categories will be added. There's already one for "trigpoints" which are the UK equivalent of benchmarks. Why not lobby to become the category owner for New Jersey State Survey markers (if there is such a thing)?

Somehow, the word 'Trivial' came to mind. I'm busy enough at geocaching.com. Got eleven caches to maintain, hundreds of caches within 15.5 miles. Why spread myself thin at another site? Maybe small frog in a big pond is the right expression? Sure, I could own 'Street Signs with the Letter 'A' in them.' But why would I want to?

I accepted geocaching.com the way I found it a year ago, and it accepted me. Some improvements need to be made on both sides. But nothing major, like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[firefish]

Thanks to all who posted a response. The reviewer did give good explanation, and indicated I could post this cache to the virtual cache site when it was up and running and I will wait until that site comes available to do that. I did appreciate the thoughtfulness and completeness of the reviewer's response. My query (and this response) are not meant to be argumentative or rude but to provide feedback.

 

A lot of confusion could be completely avoided (and a lot less time spent on creating or reviewing a cache that won't have a chance of being "accepted") if, when looking at the description of a virtual, and about hiding caches if the very first sentence is: "Virtual caches, or other "cacheless" caches (if true) are no longer accepted at this site since 2003. Please see (website name) if you wish to post a virual cache." Or, something similar. That way, no one needs to read through several areas of the guidelines and still think it will work. Why not just say it up front?

 

So, if virtuals, because they don't have a container, are not allowed to get back to the "roots" of geocaching, what about the other "cacheless" caches, like earthcaches, benchmarks, etc. I guess I am just trying to figure out in advance what is actually acceptable at this site, and if the types of caches that will exist here in the future are only cache hides I have a cache in mind and a location, (one with a cache container and logbook, etc! ) So, I will probably hide something soon. Or, at least I hope to.

 

As for "WOW" factor, this one has as much WOW as any other virtual I've found, and certainly as much or more than caches I've found. If you haven't actually been there, it would be hard to judge that.  Actually, I didn't think of putting a cache here as I felt it would be unlikely that it would survive the elements (including extreme wind) at this location. But, mostly, I didn't do a lot of searching for what might be a close-by cache hide site, because prior to submitting the cache, I really had no clue that it would be a problem, since I had no way of knowing that in 2003 virtuals were no longer accepted.

 

I don't make the rules and I know people put in a lot of effort to make this fun for everyone and that is terrific and appreciated. I am not an exclusionary person by nature, so my confusion stems from that. I guess I figure, "why not?" As long as it isn't a manhole cover every 10 feet. If server space is an issue, sure, things have to be limited in some way - but why not just say only cache hides, with very special exception, are acceptable?  If someone doesn't want to look for virtuals, it is pretty easy to avoid punching in the coordinates.

 

Anyway, it's been a few days since I've logged a find. Time to get the GPS unit out and get to work!

 

Cache On, Comrades!

Virtuals are accepted as long as they meet the guidelines.

 

Can you place a physical cache there? If yes, no virts allowed. That solves 95% of the virtual caching problem. Place a physical cache there and it will likely be approved.

 

If you can't place a physical cache there (even a cleverly disguised container that muggles wouldn't notice), then you proceed to the next step. Does the object itself make visitors say "WOW!" or is it "Just another monument, marker, statue, plaque, etc". If your object doesn't have this "WOW!" factor, then why do you want to bring geocachers there? The history of the object or location is not enough in most cases to satisfy the "WOW!" requirement. Sure, the history is interesting and there might not be a lot of people that know it happened at that precise location, but that's only going to excite the history buffs, not your average geocacher. There's more to "WOW!" than just history.

 

Also, the "WOW!" can not be the view from that location. "A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view, but a trail/beach/view is not a virtual cache"

 

Of course, now that the Waymarking site opened today, this likely doesn't matter anyway. Go submit your historical locations over there.

Virtuals are allowed only if they meet strict interpretation of the rules.

That is what isn't clearly indicated. It’s nice to know that up front.

 

All virtuals I've found can be described as views of something. And I've enjoyed every one of them.

[firefish]

A 350 y/o tree in TX? That is definitely WOW factor. I’d type in the coordinates and look for that one.

 

I probably wouldn’t be too interested in the McDonalds finds, but again, I’m really good at not typing in coordinates for caches I am not interested in!

 

The apparent direction of this site as it grows is to revert to traditional caches, moving the other stuff away into other sites. But still glad to geocache even if eventually limited down to only cache hides (at this site anyway).

 

Geocaching is a great way to learn about using a gps, bushwhacking, observation, deduction, things about the earth and places visited. Bonus: When one sees and experiences cool things, they are much more likely to support protecting cool things. This means saying “wow” at the 350 y/o tree and it means noticing the benchmark thousands of people step over every day and it means the interesting earthcache.

 

I’ve appreciated the dialog. Happy caching!