Allow Virtual Caches In Extreme Areas

[+Store]

I have just completeds the Geocahing survey. I would like to share the free text entry I made:

 

I have a heart condition that stops me from going to extreme caches. In some typical touristic areas there are almost only extreme or hiking caches, like in the Canary Islands.

 

As a tourist in an area, I am not allowed to place a cache, since I am unable to maintain it. I have attempted to place virtual caches on interesting spots but have been stopped by the admins "becuase they want to keep the places open for real caches".

 

I think this is a very rigid attitude. In places with few caches that are available to people with disabilities it must be OK to place virtual caches. You seem to forget that everyone can not go hiking!

 

Best rgds,

 

//Per

[+The Leprechauns]

New virtual caches are not allowed at all anymore, since November of last year. So the point is somewhat irrelevant. The good news is that there is no "cache maintenance requirement" or "vacation cache/ caches beyond your maintainable distance" guideline over at Waymarking.com, the new home for what previously would be classified as virtual and locationless caches. So, enjoy your trips, and submit as many waymarks as you can find!

[+tozainamboku]

Geocaching hates handicapped chindlren bu Waymarking is accessible and welcoming to all

[+The Leprechauns]

It's "chinldren."

[+BigWhiteTruck]

First off, let me say: All due respect to you and sorry that you have a disability, but:

 

Lets keep it real here. This has nothing to do with your disability and everything to do with not being allowed to place virtuals on vacation.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there weren't going to be any more virtuals at all, so this really doesn't have anything to do with anything, right?

 

Basically, you go on vacation and there are no caches there for you to do. Theere are caches there for other people, but not for you. You wish you could place one of your own, but you can't do that because you wouldn't be able to maintain it. Also, you can't place a virtual for whatever reason.

 

I think this is a very rigid attitude. In places with few caches that are available to people with disabilities it must be OK to place virtual caches. You seem to forget that everyone can not go hiking!

 

I don't follow the logic here. Would you make the same argument for a place that has no caches at all? For example, if I travelled deep into Boondock, Montana I would have the same problem as you. No caches for me to find because there aren't any, can't place one because I don't live there, can't do a virtual because they don't do virtuals anymore.

Should I say to Groundspeak: "In places with few caches that are available it must be OK to place virtual caches. " is that what I should say?

 

I just don't see how this relates to you having a disability. I don't own a boat so I can't do boat caches. If I traveled to a place where there were only boat caches, I would be upset about it, but I wouldn't scold Groundspeak for not letting me place a virtual there. Where does it end?

Edited March 29, 2006 by BigWhiteTruck

[+headybrew]

There are quite a few of us who don't like the Waymarking paradigm. If you want to place a virtual, (ie waymark) it must first fit into a category (ie Locationless cache).

 

That guarantees that all virtuals will be non-unique. And the best virtuals are the ones that are unique.

 

This whole attitude that a virtual cache is not a real cache is just plain STOOOPID. And it is the reason why I got started over at (dare I mention it?) www.terracaching.com.

 

They embrace virtuals without slaving them to locaionless caches (categories). They also embrace locationless caches. And there are no restrictions on vacation caches. In fact, most people there who hide vacation caches do them as virtuals.

 

Your approvers are your fellow cachers which creates a neat system of self-policing, and if you place a "lame" cache of any sort, it will eventually be eliminated by the process of rating where all members can rate the caches.

 

I'm not trying to promot that site over this one. I love both GC and TC. But I have looked over WM.com several times and much like brussels sprouts, it still sucks.

[+MountainMudbug]

I won't address the -should they be allowed- issue here.

My only input is that I wish to note that just because something is/was listed as a Virtual doesn't indicate that

it is inherently easy and therefore more accessible to those with handicaps or conditions.

There are some 'extreme' virtuals in the sense that you have to hike several miles to get there.

I know, I have one!

 

And perhaps I am confused, but by the title I assumed this thread would be supporting the view that Virtual caches should be once again allowed to be placed in areas off-limits to physical caches, such as National Parks, etc

[+Jeremy]

This whole attitude that a virtual cache is not a real cache is just plain STOOOPID. And it is the reason why I got started over at (dare I mention it?) www.terracaching.com.

 

Mention it? Heck. Stay over there if they offer you better features and quit complaining about Waymarking. Obviously it isn't for you.

 

Have you ever tried to take an item and leave an item in a virtual cache? Duuuuh.

 

(edit: bad speling)

Edited March 29, 2006 by Jeremy

[OpinioNate]

But I have looked over WM.com several times and much like brussels sprouts, it still sucks.

 

I happen to like brussel sprouts. A lot. Especially with the steam and butter features they'll be getting soon. I'm cool if you don't like 'em; I won't force you. If you change your mind come on over and you can have some for free. Anytime. That's how we do.

[+CYBret]

There are quite a few of us who don't like the Waymarking paradigm. If you want to place a virtual, (ie waymark) it must first fit into a category (ie Locationless cache).

 

That guarantees that all virtuals will be non-unique. And the best virtuals are the ones that are unique.

 

Example, pleeze.

 

Bret

[+headybrew]

But I have looked over WM.com several times and much like brussels sprouts, it still sucks.

 

I happen to like brussel sprouts. A lot. Especially with the steam and butter features they'll be getting soon. I'm cool if you don't like 'em; I won't force you. If you change your mind come on over and you can have some for free. Anytime. That's how we do.

 

Well I try to keep an open mind, and every few years I grab a brussels sprout and --GAK-- put it in my mouth. Then I gag. When will I learn?

 

I have tried to keep the same open minde attitude toward WM.com. But so far I've had the same result. At any rate, this is all just one persons opinion.

 

The original poster asked a question and I did him the respect of offering what I sincerely believe to be helpful information.

 

Respect is important in forum posts.

[+shunra]

This whole attitude that a virtual cache is not a real cache is just plain STOOOPID. And it is the reason why I got started over at (dare I mention it?) www.terracaching.com.

 

Mention it? Heck. Stay over there if they offer you better features and quit complaining about Waymarking. Obviously it isn't for you.

 

Have you ever tried to take an item and leave an item in a virtual cache? Duuuuh.

 

(edit: bad speling)

 

Hey Jeremy,

 

I like GC a lot, but I don't like Waymarking.

 

I like TC a lot, but I don't like their locationless caches.

 

I do whatever I like, and I don't do what I don't like. I assume that you do the same.

No need for anyone to "stay" anywhere. We follow our inner arrow and go where we want.

 

And I like Brussels sprouts too.

 

Is any of these a problem? To anyone? I don't think it should be.

[+BlueDeuce]

I have a heart condition that stops me from going to extreme caches.

 

You mean average caches. I can understand why you might have problems getting to the average cache. Personally, I'd like to see more GOOD caches for the average but mobility limited cacher.

 

Unfortunately that has nothing to do with you placing caches, so you have to follow guidelines just like the rest of us.

 

Now, I happen to love Brussel Sprouts and anybody who says different better watch it.

 

As for complaining about gc.com, yeah whatever. Sorry if I don't feel your pain. (not)

[+Ambrosia]

I won't address the -should they be allowed- issue here.

My only input is that I wish to note that just because something is/was listed as a Virtual doesn't indicate that

it is inherently easy and therefore more accessible to those with handicaps or conditions.

There are some 'extreme' virtuals in the sense that you have to hike several miles to get there.

I know, I have one!

 

And perhaps I am confused, but by the title I assumed this thread would be supporting the view that Virtual caches should be once again allowed to be placed in areas off-limits to physical caches, such as National Parks, etc

I know. I did too! And then the way the title is worded, it sounds like the virt would be in an 'extreme area', which should rule out anyone with handicapps, anyway.

 

And I have a virt in a fairly 'extreme' place, too.

[+The Leprechauns]

And I have a virt in a fairly 'extreme' place, too.

You're also a terrain 5 waymark.

[+Ambrosia]

And I have a virt in a fairly 'extreme' place, too.

You're also a terrain 5 waymark.

I am? I know, cause you have to get in a plane?

[+BlueDeuce]

cause you have to get in a plane?

 

That too.

[+tozainamboku]

There are quite a few of us who don't like the Waymarking paradigm. If you want to place a virtual, (ie waymark) it must first fit into a category (ie Locationless cache).

 

That guarantees that all virtuals will be non-unique. And the best virtuals are the ones that are unique.

 

This whole attitude that a virtual cache is not a real cache is just plain STOOOPID. And it is the reason why I got started over at (dare I mention it?) www.terracaching.com.

 

They embrace virtuals without slaving them to locaionless caches (categories). They also embrace locationless caches. And there are no restrictions on vacation caches. In fact, most people there who hide vacation caches do them as virtuals.

 

Your approvers are your fellow cachers which creates a neat system of self-policing, and if you place a "lame" cache of any sort, it will eventually be eliminated by the process of rating where all members can rate the caches.

 

I'm not trying to promot that site over this one. I love both GC and TC. But I have looked over WM.com several times and much like brussels sprouts, it still sucks.

 

I'm sorry that you don't like trying new food or don't want to try something you like but is cooked a different way. (I see in a later post you say you will keep an open mind.) I do agree with two of your points however.

 

1. It can be really difficult to find a Waymarking category that a really unique "Wow" waymark would fit in. This also means that someone searching for that "Try and wow me" virtual cache experience will not be able to find this waymark since who knows what category it will be in.

 

2. A properly done virtual cache could easily be as difficult to find as a physical cache. I saw many where the verification question was not on the obvious plaque describing what was there but was hidden off in some corner that you would only find if you had the coordinates on you GPS and the verification question so you knew when you found it. Perhaps there was no log to sign or trinkets to trade - but to me the challenge is finding the cache and if that is not enough for the puritans, so be it.

 

I have tried to address these issues directly in the Waymarking forums. I suggested a Wow!!! Waymarking category. Jeremy didn't seem to like this idea. Perhaps he thinks that "wow" requirement is what the problem was with virtuals in the first place. Certainly most of the volunteer cache reviewers thought this, since they took the brunt of people complaining when their virtual wasn't approved. However, for people who liked to search for virtuals it was this "wow" that made them interesting. Even when 90% were "lame" the few that really deserved to be virtuals made it worthwhile. (How many people continue to look for caches in Wal-Mart parking lots on the off-chance that one will be an interesting creative hide?). I would like to invite people to continue to discuss these issues in the Waymarking forums. I truly believe that with a little melted butter you can make brussel sprouts taste good . Perhaps you can make suggestions on how the Wow!!! Waymarking category can be modified to make it acceptable to TPTB. I believe that 90% of the virtual caches could be accomodated in the usual Waymarking categories. The Wow!!! category would be for those places that are truely worthy of special recognition.

[+Ambrosia]

cause you have to get in a plane?

 

That too.

 

OK. I'm ready for us to get back on topic now.

[+Jeremy]

Perhaps you can make suggestions on how the Wow!!! Waymarking category can be modified to make it acceptable to TPTB. I believe that 90% of the virtual caches could be accomodated in the usual Waymarking categories. The Wow!!! category would be for those places that are truely worthy of special recognition.

 

I expect that once the group functionality is done being implemented today that you can attempt to get this category through once you find 2 officers to manage it. It would fit into the "Waymarking Games" category that is being created for things like Coordinate Play. Then we can see whether there is any interest in this concept or whether it is just all about the numbers as some seem to believe.