Couch Potato Caching

[+drat19]

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

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

You know what they say about people who live in glass houses....

[GermanSailor]

[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.

 

 

If you go for a cache that does no longer exist and you don't find it, I guess that's what you should have expected. But honestly I don't think someone would fly from the US to Germany to visit an archived cache, because someone logged it.

 

Nobody was actually talking about caches which are no longer existing. You see, you had to make up quite a strange example to "prove" your point.

 

It's probably a different culture, in Europe more people believe in the concept of being responsible for their own actions. So there is not such a big culture of trying to blame somebody else. But I guess with the few "phony" virtuals I did, I made it clear in the log that I googled everything. It was okay with the owner. For me the cache owner is the authority when it comes to logging requirements, not someone who lives on a different continent and has nothing to do with the cache in question.

 

How happy must we all be, that we can care about something that trivial!

 

GermanSailor

[+briansnat]

If you go for a cache that does no longer exist and you don't find it, I guess that's what you should have expected. But honestly I don't think someone would fly from the US to Germany to visit an archived cache, because someone logged it.

 

Nobody was actually talking about caches which are no longer existing. You see, you had to make up quite a strange example to "prove" your point.

 

Then what are all the phony logs on some archived virtuals from?

 

My point is that you don't know if the virtual was actually there unless you visited it. Virtuals, like real caches, do go missing. Statues are moved, sites obliterated via contruction, plaques vandalized, etc...

 

When someone logs a "found it" for a cache, virtual or real, they are in essence telling the geocaching community that the cache is there. Many people won't hunt for a cache without a recent find, so a phony found it log can (and has) caused them to go after a missing cache. I personally don't think that deliberately misleading your fellow geocachers is a nice thing to do.

 

How happy must we all be, that we can care about something that trivial!

 

Who wins a soccer, basketball or baseball match is trivial, yet many people care deeply about that. I care when I notice halfway through the day that I accidently wore mismatching socks to work, or missed a belt loop. Because things are trivial, it doesn't mean you can't care about them.

[+CO Admin]

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.

 

A wise person once said:"Keep in mind the consensus isn't always right. There are times where the strong need to stand together as a group may cloud our judgement as to what is the right decision to make."

[+The Leprechauns]

But I guess with the few "phony" virtuals I did, I made it clear in the log that I googled everything. It was okay with the owner. For me the cache owner is the authority when it comes to logging requirements, not someone who lives on a different continent and has nothing to do with the cache in question.

 

How happy must we all be, that we can care about something that trivial!

I believe you're in the minority of armchair loggers if you are clearly identifying in your log that you Googled the virtual. Take this example, one of the truly "wow" virtuals in my home area. (So much so, that it is one of the few spots to qualify in Mr. T's "WOW" Waymarking category.) Four logs in a row from couch drivers in Europe. I am NOT interested in reading these in my watchlist e-mails. I *am* interested in the newbie local cachers writing about how the spot amazed them. You have to see it to believe it. You don't even know what it is until you read a little sign that explains it. Wow.

 

I don't like seeing that experience cheapened, and I don't like people pulling the wool over the eyes of a cache owner who doesn't follow these forums and likely isn't checking the nationality of everyone logging her virtuals.

[+briansnat]

I don't like seeing that experience cheapened, and I don't like people pulling the wool over the eyes of a cache owner who doesn't follow these forums and likely isn't checking the nationality of everyone logging her virtuals.

 

I'm sure most virutal owners are like me. I get the e-mail with verification info and read the log and I have no reason to suspect that some phony is sitting in front of a PC 3,100 miles away lying about visiting my virtual. Before this thread came out, it never occured to me that there would be so many dishonest geocachers out there doing this, so I never saw a need to investigate every log.

 

For these frauds to claim that this practice is fine with the virt owners because they aren't deleting the logs is disingenuous at best.

[+sbell111]

If Lep were to post in this thread, he would certainly cite a virt that I must visit the next time I'm in the area. Wow.

[+drat19]

For me the cache owner is the authority when it comes to logging requirements, not someone who lives on a different continent and has nothing to do with the cache in question.

 

How happy must we all be, that we can care about something that trivial!

GS, you're right, how you choose to log and obtain your smiley/stat is totally between you and the cache owners whose caches you log.

 

However (and sbell, save yourself the trouble of your usual reply to me...yes, I'm wielding my sledge hammer again), this issue speaks to the larger issue of an increasing number of folks doing everything they can to pad/increase their stat totals. True, no one's giving out any prizes for higher numbers (except for, of course, "perceived prestige" ), but this pursuit of the almighty stat has changed the very fabric of our game, especially in terms of how caches are placed for consumption.

 

Google-caching, and the tacit acceptance of it, presents one more way for folks who choose to worship at the altar of the church of the almighty stat to do just that. To me, folks like myself and others on this thread railing against it are simply trying to maintain our tenuous hold on the integrity of the game (a hold that's obviously and rapidly slipping away).

 

(Sidebar: Hmmm, "worshipping at the altar of the church of the almighty stat"...I liked that the moment I typed it - I may have to add a to it! )

[+sbell111]

I think that when you boil an issue like this down to individuals trying to bump up their find counts, you do the issue a disservice. Certainly, someone might google-log a virt because they enjoy doing so, rather than because they are numbers obsessed.

 

The problem is with the action that these loggers are taking, not with their individual motivations.

[+drat19]

I think that when you boil an issue like this down to individuals trying to bump up their find counts, you do the issue a disservice. Certainly, someone might google-log a virt because they enjoy doing so, rather than because they are numbers obsessed.

 

The problem is with the action that these loggers are taking, not with their individual motivations.

That is your opinion. I agree that not everyone who is Google-finding is obsessed with their stats. However, it's just opening up another avenue for those who ARE obsessed, to do it. And to that end, I stand by my assertion that the overall issue of Worship at the Altar of the Church of the Almighty Stat is at the root of the fundamental changes to our overall game which have occurred.

 

We have a bigger issue than just Google-finding. (There goes my sledge hammer again.)

 

If you choose to disagree because you honestly believe your alternative point of view, I respect that and we can agree to disagree. However, if you're just doing that "arguing an alternative point of view just for the sake of arguing" thing that you seem to do all the time, then I'll see you in the land of Plonk.

[+sbell111]

I think that when you boil an issue like this down to individuals trying to bump up their find counts, you do the issue a disservice. Certainly, someone might google-log a virt because they enjoy doing so, rather than because they are numbers obsessed.

 

The problem is with the action that these loggers are taking, not with their individual motivations.

That is your opinion. I agree that not everyone who is Google-finding is obsessed with their stats. However, it's just opening up another avenue for those who ARE obsessed, to do it. And to that end, I stand by my assertion that the overall issue of Worship at the Altar of the Church of the Almighty Stat is at the root of the fundamental changes to our overall game which have occurred.

 

We have a bigger issue than just Google-finding. (There goes my sledge hammer again.)

 

If you choose to disagree because you honestly believe your alternative point of view, I respect that and we can agree to disagree. However, if you're just doing that "arguing an alternative point of view just for the sake of arguing" thing that you seem to do all the time, then I'll see you in the land of Plonk.

Believe whatever you want, but it's my feeling that you are trying to twist all threads to meet your agenda. In doing so, you do those threads and the people who care about the issues addressed in those threads a disservice.

[+briansnat]

I think that when you boil an issue like this down to individuals trying to bump up their find counts, you do the issue a disservice. Certainly, someone might google-log a virt because they enjoy doing so, rather than because they are numbers obsessed.

 

 

Then why not just bask in the joy of the learning experience or take satisfaction from their Internet detective skills and leave it at that? Why would they see fit to log a "found it" if its not about padding stats?

 

I know geocachers who enjoy solving puzzle caches that never plan to hunt for. They do so because they enjoy it, but most of them wouldn't dream of logging a find unless they found the actual cache.

Edited January 18, 2007 by briansnat

[+drat19]

I think that when you boil an issue like this down to individuals trying to bump up their find counts, you do the issue a disservice. Certainly, someone might google-log a virt because they enjoy doing so, rather than because they are numbers obsessed.

 

The problem is with the action that these loggers are taking, not with their individual motivations.

That is your opinion. I agree that not everyone who is Google-finding is obsessed with their stats. However, it's just opening up another avenue for those who ARE obsessed, to do it. And to that end, I stand by my assertion that the overall issue of Worship at the Altar of the Church of the Almighty Stat is at the root of the fundamental changes to our overall game which have occurred.

 

We have a bigger issue than just Google-finding. (There goes my sledge hammer again.)

 

If you choose to disagree because you honestly believe your alternative point of view, I respect that and we can agree to disagree. However, if you're just doing that "arguing an alternative point of view just for the sake of arguing" thing that you seem to do all the time, then I'll see you in the land of Plonk.

Believe whatever you want, but it's my feeling that you are trying to twist all threads to meet your agenda. In doing so, you do those threads and the people who care about the issues addressed in those threads a disservice.

I don't insert my so-called agenda into every thread...only those where I believe it's obviously pertinent. This is one of them. Clearly other posters on this and other threads where the discussion has led down The New Numbers Game path agree...even if they don't wield the sledge hammer as blatantly as I do.

 

I've always been brutally consistent on this issue...everyone here knows it. Similarly, everyone here also knows that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

[+sbell111]

I think that when you boil an issue like this down to individuals trying to bump up their find counts, you do the issue a disservice. Certainly, someone might google-log a virt because they enjoy doing so, rather than because they are numbers obsessed.

Then why not just bask in the joy of the learning experience or take satisfaction from their Internet detective skills and leave it at that? Why would they see fit to log a "found it" if its not about padding stats?

 

I know geocachers who enjoy solving puzzle caches that never plan to hunt for. They do so because they enjoy it, but most of them wouldn't dream of logging a find unless they found the actual cache.

Because part of their process is logging the find. I'm not saying that the behaviour isn't obsessive (or wrong), I'm merely making the point that it is not necessarily about the numbers.

[+sbell111]

I don't insert my so-called agenda into every thread...only those where I believe it's obviously pertinent. This is one of them. Clearly other posters on this and other threads where the discussion has led down The New Numbers Game path agree...even if they don't wield the sledge hammer as blatantly as I do.

 

I've always been brutally consistent on this issue...everyone here knows it. Similarly, everyone here also knows that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

I actually don't like to argue just for the sake of arguing. However, I certainly don't mind giving a counterpoint is I feel that someone is off base. Regardless, this is not what this thread is about, either.

[+drat19]

I actually don't like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Ummm...yeah, you do. I've tried to keep a sense of humor with you while debating with you, but I'm frankly tired of the reality...you argue for the sake of arguing. Again, say what you will about my so-called agenda, but I'm consistent...and anyone may feel free to do to me what I'm doing to you...

 

Say hello to my little friend: PLONK. (<--ack and thanks to TheWhiteUrkel for adding this to my repertoire... )

Edited January 18, 2007 by drat19

[+ArtieD]

I never thought so many people would argue over something that doesn't really affect them or matter all that much...

 

Go out and cache, people!

[+Team Perks]

Go out and cache, people!

But why would I want to do that, when I can stay home and cache?

[+sbell111]

I actually don't like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Ummm...yeah, you do. ...

It's lucky that there are cachers around that can always be relied on to let us know how the game should be played. It's fortunate that they are branching out to letting us know how we feel and what we believe.

 

Go out and cache, people!

But why would I want to do that, when I can stay home and cache?

[+tozainamboku]

If Lep were to post in this thread, he would certainly cite a virt that I must visit the next time I'm in the area. Wow.

Don't forget to log a visit to the waymark too.

It really is a neat site, I didn't believe the sign an had to touch the object to verify to myself it was true. You can't do that over the internet.

Edited January 18, 2007 by tozainamboku

[flyboyty]

Others dont really care about your numbers, its mostly for your own records, why not be honest about it?

[Mr.Yuck]

I actually don't like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Ummm...yeah, you do. I've tried to keep a sense of humor with you while debating with you, but I'm frankly tired of the reality...you argue for the sake of arguing. Again, say what you will about my so-called agenda, but I'm consistent...and anyone may feel free to do to me what I'm doing to you...

 

Say hello to my little friend: PLONK. (<--ack and thanks to TheWhiteUrkel for adding this to my repertoire... )

 

Ah, nothing warms my heart like a plonking! You're welcome Drat19.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

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

 

There are some virtuals where couch potato caching is actually encouraged (or I guess not looked down upon). And go figure, most of them are in Germany. So the cache finder in question was just doing what he has observed others doing back home. I'd give a bookmark list of "couch potato caches", but why bother, since this couch potato virtual cache Four Windows is listed on about 20 bookmark lists, if anyone cares to look at them.

 

As far as an opinion, if the internet finds are definately encouraged, I don't see it as that big of a deal. But the case the OP describes is totally different.

 

I've done a couple of finds that were just like this, where the "owner" encouraged Internet posting (some of the ones on there can ONLY be done through Googling, "USO" and "Starry Starry Night" come to mind. I think those are OK to log this way (what does amaze me is that if TPTB moved virts to Waymarking partially due to this, why didn't they just close these kinds of caches down?). I don't think it is otherwise OK to log virts this way.....

Edited January 19, 2007 by HaLiJuSaPa

[+SRD525]

I think these forums are mostly a useful tool to aid cachers in a wide range of topics, but lately, I am seeing the discussions degenerate into back & forth petty sniping between and amongst the most prolific posters.

 

I used to take the opinions of these posters with high regard, however, I have now come to the conclude that they just like to exercise their argumentative skills, sadly, to the distraction of the original topic that was posted.

 

If you have something useful to add, or want to express your opinion regarding the original post, then by all means do so, and we will all know where you stand on the issue. To continue to fight for your point of view on the matter belies your own belief in the integrity of your point of view, and exposes an insecurity you should struggle with somewhere else.

[Clan Riffster]

Why would they see fit to log a "found it" if its not about padding stats?

 

I know geocachers who enjoy solving puzzle caches that never plan to hunt for. They do so because they enjoy it, but most of them wouldn't dream of logging a find unless they found the actual cache.

This is realy the gist of the issue for me. I can't speak for others, but for this lowly Clan member, logging a find on a cache that I never visited would feel like nothing more than increasing my find count. Even if the virt cache was specifically created for such a purpose, it would not feel like a find to me. As such, I could not log it as a find and still look myself in the mirror. (and yes, I do like solving puzzles I'll never log)

[+briansnat]

If you have something useful to add, or want to express your opinion regarding the original post, then by all means do so, and we will all know where you stand on the issue. To continue to fight for your point of view on the matter belies your own belief in the integrity of your point of view, and exposes an insecurity you should struggle with somewhere else.

 

It's called debate, which is by nature interactive. I've never seen a debate were each person makes a statement and that's the end of it. I think that would be called a speech.

Edited January 19, 2007 by briansnat

[+Packanack]

Or, if you do not care for the term debate and you retain your civility, you might call it conversation. And many times out of conversation comes friendship and enjoyment. This conversation pitted people against one another positionally from the get go, with people trying to equate the practice with some moral failing. Laughable in view of the fact that this is a hobby and that is all it is.

 

Prior to the OP, I wasn't even aware of the practice, now I find it intriguing and interesting and if someone enjoys it--for me it is a big so what. I have a bigger problem with things like cachers dropping out of sight and leaving behind un maintained caches, or people who are seen on the sight of a cache tearing up the ground and overturning rocks and clearly not finding and walking away without later recording a dnf. And then saying they only log finds--why--it is only a game.

 

My suggestion, go and try to do a google virtual, (you might find it harder than you think) you might like it. If you find it is not your thing so be it.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Packanack

[+briansnat]

This conversation pitted people against one another positionally from the get go, with people trying to equate the practice with some moral failing. Laughable in view of the fact that this is a hobby and that is all it is.

 

In the scheme of things, lying about whether or not you've found a cache is barely a blip on the importance scale. Still, if someone would so readily be dishonest about something so trivial, it would be interesting to take a look at their tax returns.

[+CYBret]

I've just been amazed at the absurdity of it all. Knowing from the get-go that this game is about locations how someone could park their butt in front of a computer and log a location they were no where near and call that the same game...it requires leaps and bounds that I just guess I'm not capable of making.

 

In the interest of illustrating absurdity by being absurd, I posted a DNF on a cache I didn't find. It's been interesting to see the finds posted since then. One mentions people sticking too close to the rules, another accuses me of "moaning around." Awwww.

 

But the real irony of the whole thing is the certificate itself. It says, "This is to certify that (your name here) has visited Sylvester's Cabin" and then lists the coordinates. How much more clear could it be? Your certificate says you were AT those coordinates. The computer you used wasn't at those coordinates, the server you tapped into through Google wasn't at those coordinates. Nothing you did happened at or near those coordinates.

 

Three pages later we're still hashing this out. As always I'm amazed because the reality is none of this really matters. In the end it's just a game...but it's not the same game. You at least have to admit that.

 

Bret

[+Packanack]

Perhaps the language of the Cache page would avoid the problem that is perceived by some. If the page said visit the site and E mail the inscription on the marker to get credit, anything short of that would not be valid. If the pages says e mail me the inscription (or such other requirement) then merely doing that suffices. I also find it interesting that the Europeans are exploring America virtually. Cutting edge they are.

 

I fail to see the moral dilema in logging a find on a virtual where the finder has followed the owners instructions as set forth, and I certainly do not thing that it is dishonest or disingenous-remembering of course that these are virtual caches.

 

The evolution of the game continues to the liking of some and the angst of others.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Packanack

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

TPTB have made themselves pretty darn clear since the demise of new virts - A GPS is required to be part of the search and a cache is a container with a log.

 

Every week there are less grandfathered virts and less folks hunting them, making this whole discussion rather academic.

 

Don't forget that the game is played slightly differently under each Reviewer's attitudes and interpretations of the Guidelines and in each geographic region. What may be a horrible act in California may well be the norm in Luxembourg... that does not make either style right, just different.

[+KelticFrog]

IMHO Google=cheating or at least circumventing the spirit or the cache.

 

On the other hand, if you Google one of my caches (GCTNYB) you'll get the wrong answer that will put you about 2 miles off the target.

[+ChileHead]

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??

 

Using a GPS? Lately with almost all the hides being crappy parking lot micros, I've been going without a GPS and just using google maps.

[+briansnat]

Perhaps the language of the Cache page would avoid the problem that is perceived by some. If the page said visit the site and E mail the inscription on the marker to get credit, anything short of that would not be valid. If the pages says e mail me the inscription (or such other requirement) then merely doing that suffices. I also find it interesting that the Europeans are exploring America virtually. Cutting edge they are.

 

What next? Do we need to add the same language to real caches? I've already seen some people who solved puzzle caches and logged finds despite the fact they they never visited the actual cache. From there its not much of a leap to start logging traditional caches without visiting them.

 

I'm sure these people are having fun with their virtual tours of America, or wherever, but this sport is geocaching. What they are doing is not geocaching. You don't play soccer and pick up the ball and run with it and still call it soccer. Once you start doing that it becomes rugby. A different game.

[+Packanack]

Your hypothetical omits certain facts. 1. If the language of the cache page calls for a logger to get credit by E Mailing a certain answer, then upon doing so --he gets credit. 2. If the language of the cache page calls for a specific means of logging to "get credit" then anything short of that fails. Traditional caches have a log book and a physical presence, the virtual lacks that, therein lies the important factual distinction.

 

Soccer has written rules as does rugby. The rules define the sport. I don't recall seeing written rules of "geocaching"--In fact , my feeling is that many are resistant to the idea of imposed rules, preferring the term guidelines, which by their very nature are subjected to interpretation. But again I am not the arbiter of rule making for the hobby. Have a pleasant weekend. Sunday = Waywayanda.

[+CYBret]

Your hypothetical omits certain facts. 1. If the language of the cache page calls for a logger to get credit by E Mailing a certain answer, then upon doing so --he gets credit. 2. If the language of the cache page calls for a specific means of logging to "get credit" then anything short of that fails. Traditional caches have a log book and a physical presence, the virtual lacks that, therein lies the important factual distinction.

 

The irony in this entire statement is that the company that runs this website (Groundspeak) uses the tagline, "The Language of Location." That location isn't your couch, it's the coordinates on the cache page.

 

Virtual caches may lack logbooks and a physical presence but they still have coordinates. There's a reason for that - they get you to THAT spot. That trumps any on the cache page itself.

 

Bret

[+Rockin Roddy]

Well said Brett...beat me by that much!! Why would there be coords if you could log it without visiting??? The guidelines for caching come first and foremost....the logging requirements are your own personal rules for that cache!!

[+The Jester]

Your hypothetical omits certain facts. 1. If the language of the cache page calls for a logger to get credit by E Mailing a certain answer, then upon doing so --he gets credit. 2. If the language of the cache page calls for a specific means of logging to "get credit" then anything short of that fails. Traditional caches have a log book and a physical presence, the virtual lacks that, therein lies the important factual distinction.

 

Soccer has written rules as does rugby. The rules define the sport. I don't recall seeing written rules of "geocaching"--In fact , my feeling is that many are resistant to the idea of imposed rules, preferring the term guidelines, which by their very nature are subjected to interpretation. But again I am not the arbiter of rule making for the hobby. Have a pleasant weekend. Sunday = Waywayanda.

So the virtual I placed back in 2001 - when a google find wasn't even considered - means anyone who "guesses" the answer get credit for the find? Just because I didn't say "You MUST visit the physical location"? What a bunch of b******! I'm not going to edit my cache page to satisfy a small number of cheaters who want to claim "the cache page didn't say not to". I'll just delete their logs - and I'm fairly easy going, I've had several cachers from out-of-state get the wrong answer, but gave enough info that I knew they were there so I allowed them the find. My expectation at the time of listing the virt was for people to visit the site, that hasn't changed in the least. Just because "googler's" expect to get credit doesn't change my intent - and it's my cache so my rules.

[+briansnat]

Your hypothetical omits certain facts. 1. If the language of the cache page calls for a logger to get credit by E Mailing a certain answer, then upon doing so --he gets credit. 2. If the language of the cache page calls for a specific means of logging to "get credit" then anything short of that fails. Traditional caches have a log book and a physical presence, the virtual lacks that, therein lies the important factual distinction.

 

Soccer has written rules as does rugby. The rules define the sport. I don't recall seeing written rules of "geocaching"--In fact , my feeling is that many are resistant to the idea of imposed rules, preferring the term guidelines, which by their very nature are subjected to interpretation. But again I am not the arbiter of rule making for the hobby. Have a pleasant weekend. Sunday = Waywayanda.

 

From this website's guidelines:

Virtual Caches

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.

 

No ambiguity there.

[Clan Riffster]

Soccer has written rules as does rugby.

I think it's a crime to mention s*cc*r and Rugby in the same sentence.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

My suggestion, go and try to do a google virtual, (you might find it harder than you think) you might like it. If you find it is not your thing so be it.

 

Yes, most of the ones in those "Armchair Cache" bookmark lists are harder than those on here are making it, which is one reason I haven't done most of them (for most of them, it would take less time to go find a Wally World lampost micro than to do these if you really want to pad your stats).

 

But a couple of them do border on the ridiculous and if TPTB were really serious about it, would archive them on the spot. "Exo Area 52", where all you have to do is save a webcam picture from the site, add a picture of an alien to it, and log a find with your doctored photo to get a webcam icon, is the one that most comes to mind. I thought it was cute so I did it "because it was there" (if I really cared about stats they'd be in the "low 4 digits" right now instead of the "high 2's"), but its really a big joke to the sport and doesn't belong there. Maybe someone should put an SBA note on the site and see what the reviewer does?

 

On the other hand, the "Go Trabi Go" one (where you look at a bunch of webcams of Dresden, Germany for an old Communist-era East German "Trabant" car), is very educational, especially if you are into cars), and is much more of a challenge than the description makes it; they are rare enough that you could spend hours or even days at the webcams to log your find and the car isn't always obvious. One thing though is I have heard that the original cache description had you take the picture to a physical cache so the cache owner could match it to the one you posted, so this doesn't seem completely kosher either. But I have to admit I found it fun and enjoyable, and if you're a cacher who is temporarily disabled or the weather has been poor for a long time, it's a nice way to still get your "fix" and some mental stimulation. It's not like you're going to see any new ones of these proliferate.

 

Similarly, "Starry Starry Night" (the only other one of the 20 or so of these I want to try sometime) is a true mental challenge and as someone who loves to see patterns on a map, I can get a kick out of this. But I'm amazed that this really got accepted since it is not a virtual (it's considered a "?" icon cache), came from America, not Germany, yet it is very obvious from the description that no container is involved at all.