Archived Virtuals

1.7k · March 12, 2006

Without wishinng to reopen the debate about virtuals and WM.com etc etc, as thats done and dusted, it occured to me as I saw another virtual get archived yesterday, never to be replaced, that eventually we would run out.

Soooo, how would our esteemed reviewers feel about unarchiving any virtuals that get archived and allowing them to be adopted instead? Obviously, some people in the UK will not know about the new rules, and may not realise these should be kept and nurtured!

I don't mean all the past ones of course, but any new archive requests or archivings? Or can anyone think of a better way to keep hold of the ones we've got?

March 12, 2006

I don’t know how true this is but I always got the impression that is WM.com is a success all victuals will one day be archived. If a virtual is good then I am keen to keep it alive, but I am not keen to keep all virtuals alive just because they can not be replaced.

Anyway, back to the question at hand. Is it actually a choice of the reviewer? Perhaps with a bit of query wizardry and effort we could message all virtual owners.

2.5k · March 12, 2006

Opinion

I think that people who have a Virtual cache should try and maintain them in there profile as long as they can. I personally feel that it gives many less able people a foothold into caching, with all the friendship and camradery this hobby brings. I think WM.com is segregating this group people, and personally I think that is wrong.

1.7k · March 12, 2006

As I understand it, if an archived cache needs to be un-archived, it has to meet current guidelines.

The best way to keep the virts we have is if the owner no longer wants it, they should put it up for adoption instead of archiving it.

T

6.2k · March 12, 2006

I've tried to adopt an archived Virtual in London before now. As virtual no longer meet GC.com requirements, they can't be unachieved and re-listed. Just like special deals in Tesco, when they've gone, they've gone. :rolleyes:

I hope all owners of virtuals will put them up for adoption if they can, when they no longer having the time to handle the emails for them.

March 12, 2006

I don't mean all the past ones of course, but any new archive requests or archivings? Or can anyone think of a better way to keep hold of the ones we've got?

I think the problem is cache owners don't need to request their cache be archived, they can do it themselves. The huge majority of cachers don't hang about the forums and so many also probably know little/nothing about the changes in guidelines and the importance of trying to keep these grandfathered cache types going.

Log em while you can, and think how envious all the newbies will be in 10 years time when they look at the glorious parade of unattainable cache icons on your profile!

1.7k · March 12, 2006

it was because owners can archive their own caches that it worried me they might all disappear! And if they can't be unarchived, then maybe a mail to every owner is in order! eeek!

6.2k · March 12, 2006

Or a log a note on your favourite five Virtuals saying 'If you ever plan to archive this cache, be aware it can't be unarchived and I'd love to adopt it. Please contact me if you ever plan to kill it off!' - checking to see if anyone else had already posted a similar note, of course :rolleyes:

2.5k · March 12, 2006

then maybe a mail to every owner is in order! eeek!

Unsure

Do the rules of using the mail feature prohibit mass mailings?

1.7k · March 12, 2006

I expect so, but I wouldn't know how to automate this anyway - so does lots of individual e-mails count as a mass mailing?! Not that I'm offering!

1.8k · March 12, 2006

Hmm. I've just had a look, and as far as I can see there are only 214 virtuals left in the UK. I own one of them, and that one will remain as long as it's allowed to.

Edit: To put that into context, that's 214 out of 9396 active caches, according to my not quite up-to-date GSAK.

Edited March 12, 2006 by Bill D (wwh)

1.7k · March 13, 2006

Personal Opinion

I like many virtuals and have had a lot of pleasure finding some of them. I've had a couple of virtuals myself and was saddened to see them go.

Official Position

As has been said, Ecks and I have no discretion when receiving a request to unarchive a cache, physical or virtual. To be able to unarchive it the cache has to meet current guidelines and by definition a virtual doesn't. Also to request an adoption by TPTB in the absence of the cache's original owner the cache has to still be "valid" i.e. meet the guidelines too.I think SP's idea of leaving a log on the cache page is probably the best way to go.

March 13, 2006

I have two. Cauldron snout and Flodden field, both staying as they are( my opinion) very nice places to visit. not only for scenery but also History.The only thing about cauldron is that I dont know if people walk the extra hundred yards to the waterfall and get no further than the info board at the dam.these falls after rain are spectacular and on the pennine way. I know Flodden is only counting the Granite blocks to verify your visit but visiting the site of so much carnage and death , it can put a lump in your throat thinking about it.

Nige

1.4k · March 13, 2006

Hmm. I've just had a look, and as far as I can see there are only 214 virtuals left in the UK. I own one of them, and that one will remain as long as it's allowed to.

Edit: To put that into context, that's 214 out of 9396 active caches, according to my not quite up-to-date GSAK.

Blimey if I calculate that correctly we must own 3% of all the virts in the UK - mind you the Wombles own 6%. I didn't realise how much of a dying breed they really are

Chris

Edited March 13, 2006 by Chris n Maria

1.7k · March 13, 2006

nor I - makes you wonder what all the fuss was about! Anyway, I think SP's suggestion, as Lacto says, of writing a note, is probably the way forward. Obviously, only for folks that don't use the forums I would think... I could possibly use the GSAK logging facility to do this quite quickly, so long as I set the filters correctly, but it might be better coming from local cachers to the virtual. What do people think? Is this an acceptable way to keep the few we've still got?

3.8k · March 13, 2006

I started to make a bookmark list for all virtuals and webcams, (249 in total) mainly to explain the situation to all owners. The problem is you are only allowed up to 100 caches on a bookmark list, so I have sacked the idea.

I've mentioned webcams above, but this situation also involves the Earthcaches as well. All of these are not allowed any more, and we run the risk of losing all 3 icons.

1.7k · March 13, 2006

Well, how about if we thrash out a suitably worded ‘note’ on here, and then any volunteers could deal with their local caches, using the standard note. We could include a link to this thread, thus promoting the forums! To get the ball rolling, here’s a first draft! :anicute:

Dear [owner]

You may or may not be aware that, as of 1 January 2006, [is this right?] no new virtuals, earthcaches or webcams will be allowed on geocaching.com. This means that the current ones are all we have left, and should be preserved for as long as possible!

Following discussions on the UK forums of geocaching.com ( http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=126254 ) it was decided to politely ask the owners of all the existing virtuals, earthcaches and webcams not to archive them if they feel they do not want to own them anymore, but instead to allow them to be adopted by another local cacher. Naturally, if you are happy to keep on owning them, then please do!

Regards

Dave [change this of course!]

Purple-pineapple

OK, take it from here! I REALLY must do some work...

6.2k · March 13, 2006

My suggestion:

Dear Cache Owner!

You may or may not be aware that no NEW virtuals, earthcaches or webcams are allowed on geocaching.com. This means that the current ones are all we have left, and many cachers who enjoy them feel they should be preserved for as long as possible!

Following discussions on the UK forums of geocaching.com ( http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=126254 ) it was decided to politely ask the owners of existing virtuals, earthcaches and webcams NOT to archive them if they ever feel they do not want to own them anymore, but instead to allow them to be adopted by another local cacher. I hope you're happy to keep on owning this one, but should you ever want to retire it, please don't! Either contact me, or add a note to the above thread so it can be adopted instead, to help protect the heritage of Geocaching. Thank you.

(My Name)

3.8k · March 13, 2006

I'm not too sure about 'to help protect the heritage of Geocaching.' how about 'to help sustain the life of these unique caches, as once they are archived they cannot be re-enabled.

Edited March 13, 2006 by Haggis Hunter

March 13, 2006

Do we really want to save all of them, are there not some occupying locations that would be better served by micros.

1.7k · March 13, 2006

Do we really want to save all of them, are there not some occupying locations that would be better served by micros.

Good question, and the truth is, there probably are some locations that could have micros instead. However, is it appropriate to start judging the quality of the virtuals? Who's to say what's good or bad?

Hopefully our esteemed mods can answer this, but what are the rules about distance between caches when a virtual is involved? Can we have a micro and a virtual in the same place, or would the micro have to be offset, but still using the virtual location as a clue (which I'm sure IS allowed)?

Dave

1.4k · March 13, 2006

Do we really want to save all of them, are there not some occupying locations that would be better served by micros.

There are some micros that are taking up space that would be better served by virtuals

March 13, 2006

Do we really want to save all of them, are there not some occupying locations that would be better served by micros.

Do we want to save any of them? I don't! Why not make them into offsets - you still count your granite blocks, or whatever, and go to the real cache a few hundred feet away.

BC

1.7k · March 13, 2006

Do we really want to save all of them, are there not some occupying locations that would be better served by micros.

Do we want to save any of them? I don't! Why not make them into offsets - you still count your granite blocks, or whatever, and go to the real cache a few hundred feet away.

BC

I can think of at least two virtuals where any physical cache would be impossible, unless it was offset by many many miles. The other issue is that virtuals make good holiday caches, and I would love to have put something out in old holiday locations of my childhood...

March 13, 2006

I can think of at least two virtuals where any physical cache would be impossible, unless it was offset by many many miles. The other issue is that virtuals make good holiday caches, and I would love to have put something out in old holiday locations of my childhood...

Fair enough, but isn't that what Waymarking.com was introduced for?

2.5k · March 13, 2006

Do we really want to save all of them, are there not some occupying locations that would be better served by micros.

Do we want to save any of them? I don't! Why not make them into offsets - you still count your granite blocks, or whatever, and go to the real cache a few hundred feet away.

BC

Fact

I don't own a Virtual, but I have both an Earth cache and Webcam cache; these will be maintained until they are finally killed off by the Groundspeak crew.

As for making them into offset caches, well I believe that we need to be inclusive to all sections of society, and lots of virtual and webcams actually provide that accessibility, offset them and the might become harder for some people to complete. This could drive a section of the caching community, that would not be right.

Edited March 13, 2006 by Moote.

1.4k · March 13, 2006

Fair enough, but isn't that what Waymarking.com was introduced for?

Not exactly its more a place you can hide virtuals where no one will ever go looking for them.

We get an awfull lot of logs and emails frome people who say they have really enjoyed our virts, why should they have that fun taken away from them just because some people don't like virts? They are only 2% of all the caches anyway - if you don't like them don't do them.

1.4k · March 13, 2006

Nothing to see here.....

Edited March 13, 2006 by Chris n Maria

March 13, 2006

Fair enough, but isn't that what Waymarking.com was introduced for?

Not exactly its more a place you can hide virtuals where no one will ever go looking for them.

We get an awfull lot of logs and emails frome people who say they have really enjoyed our virts, why should they have that fun taken away from them just because some people don't like virts? They are only 2% of all the caches anyway - if you don't like them don't do them.

I don't disagree with you - I just don't see the need to go to great lengths to preserve them rather than letting them get archived.

Incidentally, we have only logged five virts - one of those is actually a traditional (GCC78E), and two of the other four, all of which we enjoyed, were yours.

6.2k · March 13, 2006

I find myself completely agreeing with Moote (a very good argument for keeping virtuals, webcams and many earthcaches) and Chris n Maria. Some virtuals could be replaced by physicals, or off-set physicals of one sort or another, but many more couldn't. As it's possible to maintain virtuals from great distance many are 'holiday hides' from the days when such things were legal. If these were made physicals, who'd maintain them? They'd need to be adopted by someone more local, which sort of brings us back to the beginning.

1.8k · March 13, 2006

A lot of the caching in central London is forced to be virtuals for various good reasons, including security. What else there is mainly micros. No doubt, once the Cache Police have eliminated all the evil virtuals they will turn their attention on the unworthy micros. Then they will complain that we should get rid of all those horrible plastic containers and only good honest ammo cans will do. Thereby will the variety of caching be destroyed. I am for preserving the diversity of what we have.

1.4k · March 13, 2006

I just don't see the need to go to great lengths to preserve them rather than letting them get archived.

Well I suppose if people think they are worth keeping they will volunteer to look after them...if they don't - they won't.

Eventually we will just be left with a few really good virts and people will point and say "I have seen the past of geocaching, it was virtual and it was good"

Personally I would really hate to see "George Hodgson" go as it is just the most unexpected thing I have ever come accross when caching.

March 13, 2006

I quite like doing virtuals from the comfort of my home, during the week I cannot get out caching so like to keep myself active doing the virtuals which take research which can be done at home. Often these lead me to places which go into my mind which I may well visit if I have the opertunity at a later date.

I'm new to caching and don't want to go over old ground but I like the diversity of types all contained on a single web site.

just my 2p's worth

Mike

6.2k · March 13, 2006

'Cache-by-Google' is a bit like losing your virginity by hand. It doesn't really count* :rolleyes:

*Unless it's set as a cache you don't have to visit, such as Four Windows or some other German (most are) 'armchair cache'.

March 13, 2006

'Cache-by-Google' is a bit like losing your virginity by hand. It doesn't really count*

*Unless it's set as a cache you don't have to visit, such as Four Windows or some other German (most are) 'armchair cache'.

............and people like my dad can do these armchair caches when he cannot get out of his armchair. ..............and I can find out about places in countries I am unable to visit.............and folks can find out how lucky we are to live in the uk with our abundance of brilliant places.

just my opinion

mike

March 13, 2006

'Cache-by-Google' is a bit like losing your virginity by hand. It doesn't really count*

But it's still d a m n good fun!! :unsure:

Edited March 13, 2006 by Cryptik Souls Crew

March 13, 2006

This is my favourite 'non-box' cache I have ever done. It was a fun couple of hours and I doubt it could be replaced by a box.

Lisa

6.2k · March 13, 2006

'Cache-by-Google' is a bit like losing your virginity by hand. It doesn't really count*

*Unless it's set as a cache you don't have to visit, such as Four Windows or some other German (most are) 'armchair cache'.

............and people like my dad can do these armchair caches when he cannot get out of his armchair. ..............and I can find out about places in countries I am unable to visit.............and folks can find out how lucky we are to live in the uk with our abundance of brilliant places.

just my opinion

mike

Welcome to the sport Mike, if no one else has said, 'it's good to have you on board'. It's a great way to get out and discover new places.

There are two kinds of virtual. Ones designed to be done from an armchair (mostly German, as I say), and ones that are not. It's against the spirit of geocaching to claim a find to say you've visited a location that you've not. Otherwise you could do that with physical caches too. That's a sort of general consensus, not just my opinion. Now, I'm glad your dad gets some entertainment from remote caching but I personally insist that people claiming they've found my one in London have actually been there. It is wheelchair friendly, as may virtuals are. Most virtual owners also make their 'questions to log a find' obscure enough not to be Googlable (if that's a word) but some just ask the wrong questions.

You can find out about places all over the world via Geocaching, and hidden treasures in the UK too, but that doesn't mean you should log finds - you could just read the page and the logs and admire the photos. Sorry to hear you can't visit them in person (my passport's about to run out too) but that's not really an excuse to log caches you've not physically visited.

Please don't take this the wrong way, it's meant as helpful information and advice, not criticism.

March 14, 2006

There are two kinds of virtual. Ones designed to be done from an armchair (mostly German, as I say), and ones that are not. It's against the spirit of geocaching to claim a find to say you've visited a location that you've not.

Agreed, and I don’t think many in the UK disagree. I think of a virtual cache as somewhere you need to visit and a vapour cache (yes I made that up my self) as one that is essentially an online puzzle. If I solve the latter I tend to post a note and not log a find.

1.8k · March 14, 2006

I must say I like that definition - "vapour" caches. I have done the odd one but created a sock puppet account to log them! as I don't consider them proper finds.

Archived Virtuals

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation