Couch Potato Caching

[GermanSailor]

Hello,

 

mea culpa!

 

I did a couple of "couch potato" caches. Which were acutally much tougher than some of micros, where your effort is to find a parking lot. I don't think it is lame, because if those caches are done with some thought, then you really learn something, which to me is equally important than getting out. Acutally because of those caches I have two places on my list, which I want to see for real.

One of them is: GC44D9. I probably would never have found out that this nice place exists not to far from where I originally come from. So I will go there an check it out. Thats what geocaching FOR ME is all about: Finding new places, you wouldn't have found otherwise.

 

Sometime I don't have the time to go out hunting for a cache, so I try to solve mystery caches to be prepared or I just do an armchair cache. I don't see the problem. I don't do any harm to anybody doing this, so why shouldn't it be okay. As far as I understand it, than armchair caches are intended to be solved at home. I on the other hand don't see the achievment of driving 100 miles to find a caches which is absolutely easy to find and in an area which is not worth visiting at all. But probably gas prices of $6 a gallon (thats no joke) in Germany give you a different perspective of driving such distances just for one cache.

 

But that is just me, if somebody else doesn't like it, that's okay as well. I don't think it is lame, but playing the Geocaching - Stasi and reporting who is geocaching the wrong way, just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

I for example find that logging things at an event, is lame, but I could care less, because I don't care if somebody has high numbers or not. I'm just fat-dumb-and happy if I find a new cool place - for real or virtual.

 

GermanSailor

Edited January 17, 2007 by GermanSailor

[+fizzymagic]

I did a couple of "couch potato" caches. Which were acutally much tougher than some of micros, where your effort is to find a parking lot. I don't think it is lame, because if those caches are done with some thought, then you really learn something, which to me is equally important than getting out.

There are many things that are harder than finding a micro and are important, too.

 

Getting a good education.

Raising children.

Learning magic.

Writing GSAK.

 

However, none of those things are caching. You don't get little yellow smilies on this site for doing them. Just because something is difficult and worthwhile doesn't mean geocaching has to include it in the game.

 

The same thing goes for those virtuals you never visited, but claimed you had "found." Only in your case, claiming you had visited them when you hadn't made the activity a little less worthwhile.

 

I don't see the problem. I don't do any harm to anybody doing this, so why shouldn't it be okay.

Do you log a find every morning when you get up and brush your teeth? Do you log a find everytime you learn something new? When you take a long walk? When you do a particularly hard project at work?

 

According to your logic, you should, since maybe you had to work at it and you're not hurting anybody.

 

Only you are hurting somebody. You're cheapening the finds of everyone who actually did go and actually find the virtuals you claimed you had found.

Edited January 17, 2007 by fizzymagic

[+forthferalz]

i enjoy setting and hunting the odd virtual virtual.

http://feralcaching.wordpress.com/2006/12/...-sydney-stroll/

15 geographically challenged 'couch potatoes' and no foot soldiers

You need to send in coordinates and can get a geocoin for your troubles.

[+tozainamboku]

Only you are hurting somebody. You're cheapening the finds of everyone who actually did go and actually find the virtuals you claimed you had found.

 

He's only cheapening your finds if you let it. I personally know what finds I counted. And I know my finds are worthless. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to subtract from my find count whatever of my finds don't count. I've listed the ones that might be controversial on my profile page.

[+501_Gang]

Has anyone noticed this happening to the virtuals in their area? We are in the middle of an ice storm here, so I was wishful thinking on the web, when I noticed a virtual that had been found today. I clicked on it to see who was crazy enough to be out in this weather and it was someone from Germany. This cacher googled the information needed to get the certificate, then logged it as a find.

 

Any thoughts on the subject? It kind of makes me mad, but playing devil's advocate, they did find the information needed to log the cache.

 

Just curious what others think of "Couch Potato" caching.

 

Womel_family

 

It's people like that, that ruined Virtuals for the rest of us. Our family liked doing virtuals because it was fun to go out and look at the specific things the cache owner was showing us. If you actually took the time to look at the rest of the area, most of the time you ended up learning something interesting.

 

Our son who is home schooled loved to go to these, especially if it had something to do with history. It's a shame that they were pulled from GC.com

 

As for Waymarking (or whatever they are called) never did one, never will.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

If this is the cache, then the logger in question seems like he did all that was needed to log the cache.

 

There are no requirements at all on the page, other than answering a trivia question. There's no logbook or box to find. Heck, who knows if the hider has even visited the location....?

 

I think the issue isn't the finder or the hider, it's the idea of "virtual" geocaching. IMO, this is just one of the many problems with virts that lead TBTP to decide to stop listing them.

 

If the cache you link to is indeed the cache in question then I think the certificate you get when you enter the password says it all...

[cezanne]

As one of the "old timers", I'd just like to point at that whaaaay back when virtuals first came about, there were NO logging requirements needed.

 

Yes, I know, but that's a very long time ago and it concerns a time when geocaching was almost uniquely US-based.

 

You just went to the spot the hider wanted you to go to, and you claimed your find. Back then the honor system worked. Obviously it no longer does, hence the logging requirements on newer virtuals.

 

In my opinion, your notion "honor system" oversimplifies the situation. I started caching later than you, but I am from Europe and have observed what happened there regarding virtual caches quite closely. I always liked the concept of virtual caches (if properly implemented), but never liked virtual armchair caches which I never regarded as caches (I had some quite intense discussions on that issue with some German geocachers). In 2002 and in early 2003 many virtual caches have been approved by gc.com in Europe where a visit to the location was not even possible or at least not meaningful (most of them in Germany, but also some in the Netherlands and other countries - the reviewers were well aware of what they were doing) - the solution could only be found from at home. The public perception of how virtual caches work was a completely different one in Germany as, for example, in the US. For cachers who have been socialized in this way, it is indispensable to mention at least in the cache description of a virtual cache that a visit to the location is a prerequisite (in case of caches where the question which is asked can be answered trivially). Clearly there will still be cheaters (as there also exist for physical caches), but many cachers would refrain from logging a virtual if they did not fulfill the requirement mentioned in the description of the cache.

 

 

Virtuals were ALWAYS about going to the location, and with maybe a few exceptions any the encourage you to log a find without leaving your chair were changed that way after they were listed.

 

No, that is not true. See above.

 

Trust me, when virtual caches were created nobody considered people would sit at home and "find" them on the internet.

 

I believe you, but as mentioned above this statement concerns a different caching community with different habits.

 

BTW: It appears to me that there are many cachers (in particular in Europe) who think that a virtual cache is one that is visited in a virtual way. (I guess the notion virtual cache is ambigious.) I know hardly any real virtual caches in German-speaking countries (I own one of them) - most of them have been designed in such a way to encourage virtual visits.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited January 17, 2007 by cezanne

[+The Leprechauns]

The intent of virtual caches as listed on the Geocaching.com website is very clear from the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines document:

 

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.

 

Perhaps someone can explain how "was really there" doesn't translate well into German or Dutch. Me, I don't see any ambiguity. This is a game about visiting places in the real world. For visiting places virtually, start a website called puzzlecaching.com or virtualvisit.com.

 

Fine, so some armchair virtuals slipped through the guidelines and got published in Europe. Confine the practice to Europe, then, and leave alone the virtuals published elsewhere in the world.

 

To those who say there is no harm done by virtual logging.... in addition to the earlier observations about cheapening the value of legit finds posted by actual visitors, let me point out that virtual loggers are causing legitimate virtual caches to be archived. Here is an example of a virtual cache archived by its owner after the cache was repeatedly Google-logged by the Germans and Dutch. Now, geocachers in that area are deprived of the opportunity to score a legitimate find on a legitimate grandfathered virtual cache. A better solution would have been to tighten the logging requirements, but perhaps the owner didn't know he could do that. Oh well, that's water under the bridge. Once archived, a grandfathered cache cannot be re-established. I wonder how many other virtual caches will be killed off in the future as a result of the Google-loggers.

[+Rockin Roddy]

After reading all the posts, I guess I learned a few things! I didn't realize why virts were killed until now, and I didn't understand the problem with "internet caching"...but I'm better informed now!

 

The Lep makes a great point, as did Fizzymagic!! It IS a shame that these are killing off our virts, I too like to find the virts and when I tried to hide one a few months back, I was surprised that they were no longer allowed. Some places do not allow container caches (traditional), and suggested I place a virt. They too were surprised by the banning of them!

[+briansnat]

Acutally because of those caches I have two places on my list, which I want to see for real.

One of them is: GC44D9. I probably would never have found out that this nice place exists not to far from where I originally come from. So I will go there an check it out. Thats what geocaching FOR ME is all about: Finding new places, you wouldn't have found otherwise.

 

Well if you practiced geocaching the way it was meant to be, you would have already seen them for real. Found It logs are supposed to be a checklist of caches you visited, not a refrigerator list of "to dos".

 

When you are logging a find your log says "Found It. "It" being the cache. If you claim to have found a cache but actually didn't you are being untruthful (a.k.a. lying).

Edited January 17, 2007 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

With few exceptions, the expectation when people list a virtual cache is for geocachers to visit it. The point of answering questions is to prove you actually visited the site.

I do not believe that your claim ist true for the majority of virtual caches where only a trivial question needs to be answered and no additional logging requirement like a photograph is put forward.

My experience is that if the owner of a virtual cache wants the finders to visit the location, he at least tries his best to come up with reasonable logging requirements.

I believe that you are wrong about what the majority of geocachers believe. I believe that the majority of geocachers agree that the purpose of a virtual cache is for people to visit the location.

 

I own a virtual cache. It is true that a competent googler could suss the answer to my question, but I still expect everyone who logs a find to have gone to the location. If I find one who hasn't, I will delete his log.

Edited January 17, 2007 by sbell111

[+CYBret]

I just don't get this "virtual visit" idea. The whole game HINGES on using a GPS to actually get to a location.

 

Where did we forget that??

[+naturekid]

If it hurts so many feelings, then get rid of "Virtual Caches" and stop

crying.

 

Alone the "Virtual" makes it no real Cache and doing so,

it has nothing to do with Geocaching anymore.

 

Just my two cents.

[+drat19]

I just don't get this "virtual visit" idea. The whole game HINGES on using a GPS to actually get to a location.

 

Where did we forget that??

Well, given the explanations of the European cachers above in this thread, I'll give a slight bit of benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps they thought they were playing a different game. I don't agree with it, obviously, but willing to cut just that slight bit of slack.

 

Here in the States, though, the answer to your question remains four words: The New Numbers Game. It's the fundamental change to our game that has made the pursuit of stats primary, and the pursuit of the original enjoyment that drew so many of us to the game 3-5 years ago secondary. It has changed the way caches are placed, and the way caches are "found". (<---quotes intentional!)

 

On a separate note: Briansnat, I saw your original post above earlier this morning...glad you edited it. I agreed with the spirit of the post, of course, but the analogy you chose was obviously a little too strong in the scheme of what we're doing here (this game). Obviously you realized that as well.

[+sbell111]

If it hurts so many feelings, then get rid of "Virtual Caches" and stop crying.

 

Alone the "Virtual" makes it no real Cache and doing so,

it has nothing to do with Geocaching anymore.

 

Just my two cents.

Here's my two cents:

1) They kind of already got rid of virtuals. No more are approved.

2) The problem is not virtuals, it is people who are fraudulently logging visits. As such, it is not simply a 'virtual' problem.

3) While you might not care for virts, many people do.

 

There you go, three opinions for the price of two.

[+sbell111]

Well, given the explanations of the European cachers above in this thread, I'll give a slight bit of benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps they thought they were playing a different game. I don't agree with it, obviously, but willing to cut just that slight bit of slack.

 

Here in the States, though, the answer to your question remains four words: The New Numbers Game. It's the fundamental change to our game that has made the pursuit of stats primary, and the pursuit of the original enjoyment that drew so many of us to the game 3-5 years ago secondary. It has changed the way caches are placed, and the way caches are "found". (<---quotes intentional!)

 

On a separate note: Briansnat, I saw your original post above earlier this morning...glad you edited it. I agreed with the spirit of the post, of course, but the analogy you chose was obviously a little too strong in the scheme of what we're doing here (this game). Obviously you realized that as well.

There beliefs were based on a failure to read the guidelines. Therefore, I don't but their justification.

 

BTW, do you just cut and paste most of your posts?

[+briansnat]

I just don't get this "virtual visit" idea. The whole game HINGES on using a GPS to actually get to a location.

 

Where did we forget that??

 

The emphasis on numbers has grown over time. These phony virtual logs are just one of several practices that are meant solely to increase find counts and have nothing to do with using a GPS to find a geocache. Some others are pocket caches, retirement cards and caches that give additional "finds" for performing some task.

[+Rockin Roddy]

They already got rid of the virts...we all lost that! A virt done properly, is a great cache!

 

sbell111, maybe you could change the logging requirements so it can't be done online...then you wouldn't have to delete anything and you pretty much assure that the cache is an example of how a virt should be set up?? Just a thought!

[+sbell111]

They already got rid of the virts...we all lost that! A virt done properly, is a great cache!

 

sbell111, maybe you could change the logging requirements so it can't be done online...then you wouldn't have to delete anything and you pretty much assure that the cache is an example of how a virt should be set up?? Just a thought!

Thanks for thinking of me, but I like my virt as it is and I already feel that it stands as a good example of how virts should have been set up.

 

Jeeze.

[+drat19]

Well, given the explanations of the European cachers above in this thread, I'll give a slight bit of benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps they thought they were playing a different game. I don't agree with it, obviously, but willing to cut just that slight bit of slack.

 

Here in the States, though, the answer to your question remains four words: The New Numbers Game. It's the fundamental change to our game that has made the pursuit of stats primary, and the pursuit of the original enjoyment that drew so many of us to the game 3-5 years ago secondary. It has changed the way caches are placed, and the way caches are "found". (<---quotes intentional!)

 

On a separate note: Briansnat, I saw your original post above earlier this morning...glad you edited it. I agreed with the spirit of the post, of course, but the analogy you chose was obviously a little too strong in the scheme of what we're doing here (this game). Obviously you realized that as well.

There beliefs were based on a failure to read the guidelines. Therefore, I don't but their justification.

 

BTW, do you just cut and paste most of your posts?

I wield my point of view on this issue with a sledge hammer, you know that. Isn't it interesting that over the months more and more folks have come to agree with it, as they see the game continuing to evolve in the direction I (sadly) predicted over 2 years ago?

 

So do tell: Have you ever encountered a thread where you didn't feel it necessary to bait an argument? (I sense another "Plonk" in your future...)

Edited January 17, 2007 by drat19

[+CYBret]

If this is the cache, then the logger in question seems like he did all that was needed to log the cache.

 

There are no requirements at all on the page, other than answering a trivia question. There's no logbook or box to find. Heck, who knows if the hider has even visited the location....?

 

I think the issue isn't the finder or the hider, it's the idea of "virtual" geocaching. IMO, this is just one of the many problems with virts that lead TBTP to decide to stop listing them.

 

If the cache you link to is indeed the cache in question then I think the certificate you get when you enter the password says it all...

 

Eeeh...I decided that if you can find it virtually you can probably DNF it virtually too.

 

 

Bret

[+sbell111]

I wield my point of view on this issue with a sledge hammer, you know that. Isn't it interesting that over the months more and more folks have come to agree with it, as they see the game continuing to evolve in the direction I (sadly) predicted over 2 years ago?

 

So do tell: Have you ever encountered a thread where you didn't feel it necessary to bait an argument? (I sense another "Plonk" in your future...)

Just like you, I don't hesitate to engage if someone is off track, in my opinion.

[+Gator Man]

I have some virtuals in CT, and one has gotten some "Couch Potato" logs recently. The cachers who logged it live in Quebec. Having lived through three New England winters, I know there are some days when you just don't want to go outside. Since it is Winter where they are, I imagine they have CABIN FEVER, and just want to do SOMETHING related to Geocaching. (One of the three had the wrong answers, so his log was deleted.)

 

GM

[cezanne]

Perhaps someone can explain how "was really there" doesn't translate well into German or Dutch.

 

The main source of the problem is not a linguistic one. You would need to ask the reviewers (formerly called approvers) at gc.com who approved lots of virtual caches where a visit to the location is not possible or where the answer to the questions asked cannot be found out at the location.

 

A very large group of cachers whose native tongue is not English do not really read the guidelines, in particular not if they do not get caught into troubles during the review process. Groundspeak never made available the guidelines in foreign languages (which is not surprising at all and perfectly ok with me).

By now there exist some attempts of translations of the guidelines (which are, however, less widely known as they are hosted on sites outside of gc.com), but back in the time when most armchair caches have been designed the situation was different.

 

While I myself do not accept armchair caches as caches (and have never done so), I can understand that there are a lot of cachers whose reasoning works as follows: If such armchair caches have been approved by gc.com (and have even be defended by the responsible approvers) and the logging practice to log a found it if all logging requirements are fulfilled is widely accepted (not only by the owners of those caches), then it should be ok to log them in the same way as others do it.

 

I still think that it is the responsability of the caching site and not of the loggers of armchair caches to react.

 

Me, I don't see any ambiguity. This is a game about visiting places in the real world.

 

I do agree, but for exactly that reason I think that the name "virtual cache" was a silly name. (Think of virtually reality and concepts like that which make you visit places which you are not visiting in reality.)

I never claimed that the explanation of the notion virtual cache in the guidelines is ambiguous - I just referred to the term "virtual cache" which is ambiguous if one does not look at the guidelines.

 

It actually happened to me quite often that people in German speaking countries who do not like virtual caches told me that the reason for their dislike would be the fact that virtual caches do not get you out of your home. This shows again that quite a lot of cachers in the community I was talking about have a wrong concept of virtual caches in mind.

 

Have a look for example at the cache Langenstein (it has been archived a while ago). Among hundreds of "found it" logs (I think more than 1000), there are only a handful (I think 2-3, one of them being myself and another one a Dutch family) who have actually been there. This cache and many others have on purpose be designed in such a way that it was not necessary to visit the location (in the case of the Langenstein cache, the owner did not even react to the suggestion to ask for a photograph or the answer to a question which can only be found at the location itself - I even suggested such questions to him).

 

Another example is the cache UFO (a virtual cache location in Innsbruck, designed by a German cacher living very far from Innsbruck). The cache was for a long time the cache with the most finds all over Austria because so many foreigners logged the cache who have never visited that place. It took quite some time to finally have this cache archived (one of the reasons why the request finally succeeded was that the owner of the cache had stopped to reply to mails to him sending him the answers to the questions).

 

For visiting places virtually, start a website called puzzlecaching.com or virtualvisit.com.

 

I am not the right person for this suggestion. I am convinced that there is a demand for such a site, but I do not belong to the target audience of such a site.

 

Fine, so some armchair virtuals slipped through the guidelines and got published in Europe.

 

That's not true. I recall discussions I and others had with at least one reviewer from Groundspeak on that issue. He/she defended armchair virtual caches. So the approval happened on purpose and not my mistake.

 

Confine the practice to Europe, then, and leave alone the virtuals published elsewhere in the world.

 

Your somewhat aggressive tone makes me think that you misunderstood my postings. I am neither defending armchair caches nor cachers who log virtual caches without visiting the location. I only tried to help the people reading this thread understand the background a little bit better. If the idea in this thread is

to remain within the group of US-cachers who share the same opinion anyway, but not suggest any improvement, well, then go ahead. I will not take part any further in this thread.

(NB: There are at least equally many strange logging practices in the US than in other countries, for example I have never heard about pocket caches in Europe. Each community has apparently its own problems.)

 

Any owner of a virtual cache who gets "found it" logs which do not fulfill the requirements the owner wishes to impose, can log those logs. If he does not delete the logs, the owner either does not care or even agrees with the logging practice. In both cases, it is mainly the owner who is to be blamed and not the person claiming a find without having visited the location.

 

Wouldn't it be much simpler to add a single line to the description of a virtual cache saying "You need to visit the location. Otherwise "found it" logs will be deleted" at least after the first case of an unintended log arises?

 

I do own a virtual cache myself and I had no problems at all to design it in a way that I can check whether a cacher claiming a find visited the location or not.

 

Cezanne

Edited January 17, 2007 by cezanne

[+The Leprechauns]

Wouldn't it be much simpler to add a single line to the description of a virtual cache saying "You need to visit the location. Otherwise "found it" logs will be deleted" at least after the first case of an unintended log arises?

No, the 99% of properly constructed virtual caches don't need to be edited to handle the small minority of creative Google-loggers. Any inconvenience ought to fall elsewhere, and not on cache owners who read and follow the listing guidelines. The assumption of most virtual cache owners is that the finder will actually visit.

 

The obligation to delete bogus finds is also found right in the guidelines. I am not in the habit of pasting all the relevant guideline text into my cache descriptions.

 

I still think that it is the responsability of the caching site and not of the loggers of armchair caches to react.

 

Archiving all the European armchair caches would certainly clear up any confusion.

 

Your somewhat aggressive tone makes me think that you misunderstood my postings. I am neither defending armchair caches nor cachers who log virtual caches without visiting the location. I only tried to help the people reading this thread understand the background a little bit better.

 

Please note that any snarkiness is not directed at you, but at the dumb practice of armchair caching, and the effect which armchair logs are having on legitimate virtual caching. Thank you for posting to explain the thinking on your side of the pond.

[+tozainamboku]

It's people like that, that ruined Virtuals for the rest of us. Our family liked doing virtuals because it was fun to go out and look at the specific things the cache owner was showing us. If you actually took the time to look at the rest of the area, most of the time you ended up learning something interesting.

 

Our son who is home schooled loved to go to these, especially if it had something to do with history. It's a shame that they were pulled from GC.com

 

As for Waymarking (or whatever they are called) never did one, never will.

 

I doubt that virtual visits to virtuals has anything to do with virtuals no longer being accepted on geocaching.com. If this were the real problem, virtuals would have been archived instead of grandfather. Lep points out that some people have archived their own virtuals because they couldn't deal with couch potato logs, but I doubt you can find a case where TPTB archived a virt for this reason.

 

I'm happy that your son enjoyed visiting virtuals where there was some history lesson to learn. If so, I can't understand that you write off Waymarking so quickly. With Waymarking you can find the categories you and your son are most interested in. There are some very interesting History subcategories. You may even enjoy just going to see the historic markers in your state. You sound like you saw the McDonalds category and decided that all of Waymarking is a wasteland. It is a shame that you throw out all the good places you can take your home schooled child to visit because there may be some categories you don't want to visit.

 

Perhaps someone can explain how "was really there" doesn't translate well into German or Dutch.

The Germans have a long tradition of broadly interpreting "was really there". I suspect Liar's caches are popular there as well

[Mr.Yuck]

 

To those who say there is no harm done by virtual logging.... in addition to the earlier observations about cheapening the value of legit finds posted by actual visitors, let me point out that virtual loggers are causing legitimate virtual caches to be archived. Here is an example of a virtual cache archived by its owner after the cache was repeatedly Google-logged by the Germans and Dutch. Now, geocachers in that area are deprived of the opportunity to score a legitimate find on a legitimate grandfathered virtual cache. A better solution would have been to tighten the logging requirements, but perhaps the owner didn't know he could do that. Oh well, that's water under the bridge. Once archived, a grandfathered cache cannot be re-established. I wonder how many other virtual caches will be killed off in the future as a result of the Google-loggers.

 

Interesting link. There's a lot of virtual logging going on currently, someone was complaining in the Northwest forum about having to recently delete the logs of two German "finders" to a virtual in Washington State. And Influenced by this thread, I just stumbled on another virtual which was locked and recently archived specifically due to overseas virtual visits: Expedition

 

Maybe my opinion is skewed, because I have done a cache designed to be done through internet research (It's listed only on Navicache and GPSgames.org), that took about 3-4 hours of work. It's a multi that has it's own stand alone website, and is outstanding, in my opinion. I really don't see a problem with the European virtuals in question existing. They were "snuck in", so to speak, and obviously there can be no more listed.

 

But I totally disagree with the long distance internet finds to caches that don't encourage, or gladly accept them. And the absence of any "no internet finds" disclaimer on the cache page is no excuse.

 

I just looked at a super lamo, answer easily guessed, and verified on the internet, virtual relatively close to my home coords. No internet finds yet, as far as I can tell; and I ain't saying where it is.

Edited January 17, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+ArtieD]

I just think that if the people who published the virts had come up with a question that only people who actually visited the area could answer, a lot of this angst would be avoided.

 

I did this on an offset cache I hid. The answers that lead to the main cache can only be had by visiting the site. Beleive me, I looked for anything on Google that might help the lazier among us.

 

All in all, does it really matter in the scheme of life? I say cache on! Have fun!

Edited January 17, 2007 by Arthur & Trillian

[+The Leprechauns]

I just think that if the people who published the virts had come up with a question that only people who actually visited the area could answer, a lot of this angst would be avoided.

1. Prior to the onset of cheaters, bombproof verification questions weren't considered necessary.

2. When verification requirements became mandatory, reviewers tried to "crack" virtuals by searching online for the answers. They may have missed something.

3. Have you noticed that the internet is getting bigger? What may have been bombproof four years ago may now be an armchair virtual because of a photo added somewhere on the 'net within the past few years. The most obvious example is Waymarking.com. There are now thousands of photos of historic markers, long a subject for virtual caches.

[+ArtieD]

1. Prior to the onset of cheaters, bombproof verification questions weren't considered necessary.

2. When verification requirements became mandatory, reviewers tried to "crack" virtuals by searching online for the answers. They may have missed something.

3. Have you noticed that the internet is getting bigger? What may have been bombproof four years ago may now be an armchair virtual because of a photo added somewhere on the 'net within the past few years. The most obvious example is Waymarking.com. There are now thousands of photos of historic markers, long a subject for virtual caches.

 

You make valid points.

 

I don't know...I just think that this is something that, in the scheme of caching and having fun in general, is minor. If someone actually gets the right answers, emails the owner and the owner verifies those answers as being correct, then oh well.

 

It's sure a lot better than those who say they find a regular cache and really don't. In that case it may lead other cachers to try to find a cache which may or may not be there.

 

The former is far less harmful than the latter. IMHO, of course.

[+sbell111]

I don't know...I just think that this is something that, in the scheme of caching and having fun in general, is minor. If someone actually gets the right answers, emails the owner and the owner verifies those answers as being correct, then oh well.

 

It's sure a lot better than those who say they find a regular cache and really don't. In that case it may lead other cachers to try to find a cache which may or may not be there.

 

The former is far less harmful than the latter. IMHO, of course.

Aren't they both the very same thing?

[+tozainamboku]

I don't know...I just think that this is something that, in the scheme of caching and having fun in general, is minor. If someone actually gets the right answers, emails the owner and the owner verifies those answers as being correct, then oh well.

 

It's sure a lot better than those who say they find a regular cache and really don't. In that case it may lead other cachers to try to find a cache which may or may not be there.

 

The former is far less harmful than the latter. IMHO, of course.

Aren't they both the very same thing?

In the former, briansnat's friend will drive 100 miles out of his way and find the virtual cache that he could have found while sitting at home in front of the computer. In the later, brainsnat's friend will drive 100 miles out of his way to look for a physical cache and may wind up logging a DNF. You'll have to check with briansnat's friend to see if one is less harmful than the other

[GermanSailor]

Only you are hurting somebody. You're cheapening the finds of everyone who actually did go and actually find the virtuals you claimed you had found.

 

I didn't see it this way, but I get your point. My intention of course is not to "cheapen" someones finds. But on the other hand, I wouldn't feel that someone cheats the 5/5 finds of a Geocacher by finding 100 1/1 drive by magnetic key holders in a day. I wasn't aware at all that I act as a benchmark for you, and that you measure the "worth" of you finds by comparing them to mine.

 

Probably the wording "hurting" was bad.

 

Are there people out there, who really have the time and interrest in how the finds of other people are done? Aren't there a million other things to do in this wonderful country?

 

We have the type of person in Germany, usually retirees who can't handle the amount of time they suddenly have, and start reporting people who don't park in the right spot and so on. For me those "cybercops" who sniff around in the GC database just to report "unethical" behaviour are somewhat strange.

 

Geocaching is just a game!

 

GermanSailor

[+briansnat]

For me those "cybercops" who sniff around in the GC database just to report "unethical" behaviour are somewhat strange.

 

Being that geocaching is just a game, to me those geocachers who have a need to engage in unethical behavior are somewhat strange.

Edited January 17, 2007 by briansnat

[+Team Perks]

Being geocachers, aren't we strange by definition?

[+sbell111]

Being that this thread is about a small fraction of a type of cache that isn't even approved anymore, I'm surprised that everyone hasn't simply shrugged their shoulders and let the cache owners deal with the issue.

[+drat19]

Being geocachers, aren't we strange by definition?

Spoken like the three-eyed cat that you are...

[+Packanack]

Anyone have a bookmark of easy couch potato caches.

 

Ah the evolution of the game is not to the liking of some of the traditionalist. Much like THE EVOLUTION

[+Packanack]

I ran a PQ on virtuals around this area and it looks like I may actually have to leave the building, and it is cold outside.

 

Like really --who cares.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Packanack

[GermanSailor]

For me those "cybercops" who sniff around in the GC database just to report "unethical" behaviour are somewhat strange.

 

Being that geocaching is just a game, to me those geocachers who have a need to engage in unethical behavior are somewhat strange.

At some of those evil armchair Caches the owner explicitly allows virtual finds using google.

Some people just do Geocaching their way.

 

Don't you think that the term "unethical behavior" is a bit strong in this context. That in my opionion "cheapens" the meaning of "ethic".

 

In Bavaria, (which you all should visit for real and not just virtual with google Earth) we have a saying:

 

"Leben und leben lassen" ist means:"live and let live!" That's my approach to Geocaching (and many other things as well), I won't do anything which make your life harder, but I may as well ask you not to impose your standards what is ethical and what not on my actions as long as you are not affected, by my actions. Kind of "poor man's" Kant.

 

Would it be unethical for a cache owner to allow archair caching?

Would it be unethical to stigmatize other cachers for their way of playing the game?

Is it really your business what I log, especially if you are not the owner of the cache in question?

Is it ethical to patronize a cache owner on how he has to run his cache?

 

GermanSailor

[+briansnat]

At some of those evil armchair Caches the owner explicitly allows virtual finds using google.

 

There are a few of these, very few, because Groundspeak cracked down on them fairly quickly. Most virtuals were listed with the idea that people would visit them.

 

So unless they are ones that specifically invite armchair finds, claiming you found a cache when you didn't would be dishonest.

 

Leben und leben lassen" ist means:"live and let live!" That's my approach to Geocaching (and many other things as well), I won't do anything which make your life harder...,

 

So if you log phony finds on my virtuals, causing me to have to delete them, that isn't making my life harder? (well a tiny bit at least).

 

How about if you post a phony found it on a virtual that no longer exists, and I see your "find" and decide to go search for it? I will have wasted my time thanks to your version of the game.

 

Or what about the instance that Lep pointed out earlier where the cache owner got tired of deleting phony logs and archived the cache, depriving other people who want to find it in the way it was meant to be from doing so.

 

There are very few behaviors in geocaching that are done in a vacuum. How you play the game can and does affect others.

Edited January 17, 2007 by briansnat

[+wimseyguy]

Being geocachers, aren't we strange by definition?

Spoken like the three-eyed cat that you are...

People are strange when youre a stranger

Faces look ugly when youre alone

Women seem wicked when youre unwanted

Streets are uneven when youre down

When youre strange

Faces come out of the rain

When youre strange

No one remembers your name

[+sbell111]

The Doors - People are Strange

 

Here's mine:

 

Look at him working, darning his socks in the night when there's nobody there. What does he care?

All the lonely people where do they all come from?

All the lonely people, where do they all belong?

[+sbell111]

The Doors - People are Strange

 

Here's mine:

 

Look at him working, darning his socks in the night when there's nobody there. What does he care?

All the lonely people where do they all come from?

All the lonely people, where do they all belong?

Oops, wrong thread.

[Mr.Yuck]

For me those "cybercops" who sniff around in the GC database just to report "unethical" behaviour are somewhat strange.

 

Being that geocaching is just a game, to me those geocachers who have a need to engage in unethical behavior are somewhat strange.

 

Yes, what BrianSnat said. Of course I could type that just about any time. Who has "reported" anything? This is a forum for discussion. Winter European armchair virtual loggers have apparently made themselves quite visible in recent weeks, and it's a valid topic for a discussion.

Edited January 17, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Rockin Roddy]

They already got rid of the virts...we all lost that! A virt done properly, is a great cache!

 

sbell111, maybe you could change the logging requirements so it can't be done online...then you wouldn't have to delete anything and you pretty much assure that the cache is an example of how a virt should be set up?? Just a thought!

Thanks for thinking of me, but I like my virt as it is and I already feel that it stands as a good example of how virts should have been set up.

 

Jeeze.

 

Oh...sorry, I didn't mean anything bad by that. It just seems that you said that your virt answer could be found on the internet. Having read that the problem LIES with that, I thought that would be a good idea...of course it's your call though. I just thought it was a good idea since that is what everyone seems to think is what the problem is!!

 

edit to add: All the lonely People...The Beatles

Edited January 17, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+tozainamboku]

edit to add: All the lonely People...The Beatles

I believe the title is Eleanor Rigby.

[Mr.Yuck]

Anyone have a bookmark of easy couch potato caches.

 

I know of about 15. But as far as I know, all the caches on them are for VC's (almost all in Germany) where armchair logging is an accepted practice, and not really the subject of this forum thread. I've yet to see a "these are virtual caches you can probably get away with googling without actually visiting" bookmark list, but I'll let you know if I come across one.

[+Rockin Roddy]

You may be right...I may be crazy!!

Ohhh, but It just might be a lunatic you're looking for...

[adampierson]

And no I won't give away the right answer.

If someone else does it though they are only cheating themselves out of the hike.

 

I understand your position and agree... now how about telling me all the WRONG answers?