Jump to content

My input on virtuals


EraSeek
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I'm sure this has been beaten to death, but I wish to add my input.

I recently made a trip to D.C. Most all caches there are virtuals. I am now a firm believer that virtuals should be brought back to Geocaching.

 

I know that Waymarking was suppose to be the new place for virtuals and locationless, and I am all for leaveing locationless out of this site, but Virtuals have value as Geocaches. I had a cache that was moved over to Waymarking and I'm not really sure it fit into any category, but once ownership was removed and switched over to group management I wanted nothing to do with Waymarking.

 

I wish to own my caches and own my finds. To take pride in them. Locationless do not take you to a place, they are more like a collection of things you come across, but Geocaches and virtuals do. The whole idea is that you use your GPS technology to lead you to a coordinate. Where it takes you and what it shows you is where quality caching comes in. I could care less if there is junk at the end or not, but I do care if it provides some value. The virtuals I experienced in DC did that. Waymarking never has.

 

Sorry, nice try on the new site. Maybe others will use it, but I for one would like Virtuals returned.

I'm excited that D.C. is what prompted this post. I'm going to D.C. in August and I hope to find many of the virtuals while there. I enjoy virtuals myself. Many have taught me very interesting history lessons, and have stopped me and prompted me to read over monuments and such that I would have otherwise just glanced at.

Link to comment

I'm bumping this thread because it's an important issue that Groundspeak needs to deal with. Virtual Caches ARE A NECESSARY CACHE TYPE. Waymarking is not even close to replacing Virtual Caches, but I suppose it's great if I want to find the nearest Starbucks.

OK, I can't let this part go without comment.

Waymarking is EXACTLY what geocaching would be like if they had continued to allow any old virtual.

 

You're complaining about the quality of waymarks, yet that is proof that those are the kinds of "virtuals" most people would list here if they could (and have in the past).

Fortunately for new cachers like yourself, most of the crappy virtuals have since died a slow and painful death, but it wasn't always the case. I've personally done virtuals that were a tree, a fire hydrant, a telephone pole, a house, a rusting tower, and all sorts of uninteresting crap.

If it's such a remote place, place a high quality hide there (good container like an ammo box in a place it's not gonna be found by non-cachers) and shut up. A *good* hide shouldn't need any maintenence for years to come. It only becomes a problem when people hide crappy containers and/or in poor areas.

Link to comment

Quote by Mopar:

 

"As for the previous poster.......

If it's such a great spot, I'm sure eventually someone who isn't as lazy as you are will place a REAL cache there."

 

Actually (and in this case I agree with you Mopar, but not completely on the virtuals issue, though I won't go there, I have many many other posts on it); doesn't the hider need to go there anyway to get the coords, even for a virtual (or are we assuming that they'd just "cheat" with Google Earth like many are doing at finding virtuals and probably helped lead to its demise as well).

Edited by HaLiJuSaPa
Link to comment
I'm bumping this thread because it's an important issue that Groundspeak needs to deal with. Virtual Caches ARE A NECESSARY CACHE TYPE. Waymarking is not even close to replacing Virtual Caches, but I suppose it's great if I want to find the nearest Starbucks.

OK, I can't let this part go without comment.

Waymarking is EXACTLY what geocaching would be like if they had continued to allow any old virtual.

 

You're complaining about the quality of waymarks, yet that is proof that those are the kinds of "virtuals" most people would list here if they could (and have in the past).

Fortunately for new cachers like yourself, most of the crappy virtuals have since died a slow and painful death, but it wasn't always the case. I've personally done virtuals that were a tree, a fire hydrant, a telephone pole, a house, a rusting tower, and all sorts of uninteresting crap.

If it's such a remote place, place a high quality hide there (good container like an ammo box in a place it's not gonna be found by non-cachers) and shut up. A *good* hide shouldn't need any maintenence for years to come. It only becomes a problem when people hide crappy containers and/or in poor areas.

I hate to say it, but I hope he *never* hides a cache there Mopar.

 

I have the perfect location for my next cache. Only problem is, I cannot place a traditional cache there because it is so difficult to get there, that I am sure that I will never return, therefore there can be no cache maintenance.

<snipped>

The hike to this cache is only a few miles roundtrip, yet it takes over 8 hours. It is painstakingly difficult. I'm going to maintain this thing? No way.

He would never maintain it, virtual or traditional. If it is such a great place, I would think he would be going there all the time. One of my favorite places in the Smoky Mtns was a fairly short but tough hike that includes a rock scramble and you ended up along a 150' to 200' sheer cliff. I've been there at least 10 times. The only reason I stopped going there is because it was closed off due to a peregrine falcon moving onto the cliff. I have not checked in a couple of years, but the last time I checked they said it was still closed.

 

gregduckhawk.jpgfalconwarning.jpg

 

A second one was an off trail hike that was the old manway trail that did have a good 100 foot rock climb up a cliff with a few other ledges to climb up along the way. It was a steep hike the whole way. I used to time myself on that one to see if I could beat my old time (the old Chimney Tops trail, my best time was 23 minutes from my car to the top if you know the trail, since closed due to injuries on the trail). There is an easier hike, but I loved the hard one. If his hike is so great, I would think he would do it more often than once.

 

And if I hear people say one more time "Waymarking is not even close to replacing Virtual Caches, but I suppose it's great if I want to find the nearest Starbucks", I think I am just going to vomit. So, you think Waymarking stinks because of that, but it would be OK for geocaching.com to turn into that? Geez, I cannot stand to hear people use that argument.

 

Also please spare me the "well, limit what is listed" argument. The "Waaaaa, my virtual cache wasn't listed!"complaining for trying to get published what was equivalent to listing your local Starbucks is what got them moved to Waymarking in the first place. Trust me, I was there. I remember the back and forth arguments within the reviewer community to get coffee shop listed. The ONLY reason one got listed is because its name was "The Travel Bug" or something like that. I can see it now... "That coffee shop got listed as a virtual, why didn't mine? Waaaaaa!"

Link to comment

to a sneaker in the woods

Alright that's it!Does someone have a link to this 'sneaker in the woods' virtual or is it just an extreme example that all of you keep using?This is like the tenth time I've seen this.

Here's the cache, though it's not currently listed as a virtual and all the logs but one have been deleted (the one remaining one I believe is the cache hider's current account). GC3129

 

It caused quite a stir at the time, though since the forum software was changed shortly after that it's kind of hard to search out posts from back then.

 

As for the previous poster.......

If it's such a great spot, I'm sure eventually someone who isn't as lazy as you are will place a REAL cache there.

I see why virts are now at Waymarking. :D

Link to comment

I'm bumping this thread because it's an important issue that Groundspeak needs to deal with. Virtual Caches ARE A NECESSARY CACHE TYPE. Waymarking is not even close to replacing Virtual Caches, but I suppose it's great if I want to find the nearest Starbucks.

OK, I can't let this part go without comment.

Waymarking is EXACTLY what geocaching would be like if they had continued to allow any old virtual.

 

You're complaining about the quality of waymarks, yet that is proof that those are the kinds of "virtuals" most people would list here if they could (and have in the past).

 

<snip>

Just because the Approval process for Virtual caches was very poorly implemented in the past, doesn't mean it has to be that way again . . . :D

 

There are limiting factors for many of the Waymarking categories. The same "semi-automated" process could be used to greatly limit any Virtual submissions Reviewers had to look at.

 

Waymarking is not what the grandfathered Virtuals on this site are, but new Virtual submissions to this site could be excellent . . . and unlike Waymarks, would actually get visits. :lol:

Link to comment
There are limiting factors for many of the Waymarking categories. The same "semi-automated" process could be used to greatly limit any Virtual submissions Reviewers had to look at.

 

Waymarking is not what the grandfathered Virtuals on this site are, but new Virtual submissions to this site could be excellent . . . and unlike Waymarks, would actually get visits. :D

Maybe, but it has been proven over and over that people absolutely will come to the forums and will write to Groundspeak and complain that their idea was not listed. Unfortunately, those people turned out to be their own worst enemy because of how bitter and vitriolic some of those complaints were (again, even demonstrated in this very topic). It is human nature that some people will not take no for an answer. It has been proven that it just won't work. They now have a happy home where the answer 99 percent of the time is yes.

 

Going back to the the original post, I know Washington DC very well. I frankly don't know of but maybe two things there that would still qualify as a virtual cache based on your interpretation, but we still get virtual submission for brass statues riveted to concrete that I would not list. One big problem with bringing back virtual caches is that most of the acceptable ones already are listed as virtuals on the site.

Link to comment
<snip>

As for the previous poster.......

If it's such a great spot, I'm sure eventually someone who isn't as lazy as you are will place a REAL cache there.

 

<snip>

If it's such a remote place, place a high quality hide there (good container like an ammo box in a place it's not gonna be found by non-cachers) and shut up.<snip>

 

Mopar: I know you feel passionately about the subject, as your posts show, but those 2 comments are beneath you.

 

Edited to fix quotes.

Edited by Corp Of Discovery
Link to comment

I agree with EraSeek 100 percent. My interest in geocaching started to decline with the invention of Waymarking and the end of new virtual submissions. Who ever runs geocaching now?, should have adhered to the old rule of "keep it simple stupid". But i guess like all things that start out fun, they go corporate....

Link to comment

A crappy multi cache is no substitute for a virtual cache. I filter out all multi caches on my PQ's outside my home area. Since I don't know how long a multi will take (you can't filter for that) and I don't know if I will ever get back (you can't filter for that either) to complete it, I'd rather just see the virtual, free and proud the way virtuals were meant to be.

Exactly! :o

 

When I traveled from California to Colorado, I also filtered out all the Multi-caches, but I got the Virtuals in my PQs and found some places and things I never would have found any other way. Here are some of them and why a final container cannot be hidden any place nearby.

 

Harry and Mike's Place -- Surrounded by either private property or an Indian Reservation

 

Canyon de Chelly - Spider Rock Overlook -- In a National Park and surrounded by Indian Reservations beyond that

 

Four Corners Monument -- Surrounded by an Indian Reservation

 

What Time Is It? -- Very urban location. A multi here would be a crappy micro :o

 

Memories of Mary -- Fantastic remant of famous amusement park surrounded by "urban renewal"

 

A Truly Great Human Being -- Located in a very large cemetary

 

My long trips last year were made so much better by the cool Virtual caches I found as I drove those 7,000 miles. :o

 

 

Thanks for mentioning my cache A Truly Great Human Being. But that cache would have worked very well as a leg in a multi-cache. At the time it was placed Virtuals could be placed, however if I wanted to use it in a new cache I could hide a container in the near by park and make the answers to the Virtual the answers required to figure out the final stage in the park where the container was.

 

But thanks for mentioning the cache. Its my only hide at the moment. :laughing:

Edited by Michael
Link to comment

That might be true about your cache -- which was a fun one to find since I knew all about the product the deceased was associated with, having gone to college in Colorado -- but not about the other Virtual caches in that list. :o

 

They are fantasic, stand-alone Virtual caches, and four of the five simply cannot be turned into Multi caches. :laughing:

Link to comment

My favorite virtual in Colorado is Patron 'Aint GC7C73 which is Doc Holiday's grave. It is on the hill overlooking Glenwood Springs. There is a traditional cache less than 100 feet away outside the cemetery fence. I never would have climbed the hill to log Shine on Doc GCN6VK if the virtual wasn't there.

The other memorable virtual I did was at the intersection of 14th and Independence in Washington DC.

The Forest Service Information Center even hands out some SWAG which is unique for a virtual.

The other virtuals that I have logged are not that memorable.

Link to comment

That might be true about your cache -- which was a fun one to find since I knew all about the product the deceased was associated with, having gone to college in Colorado -- but not about the other Virtual caches in that list. :laughing:

 

They are fantasic, stand-alone Virtual caches, and four of the five simply cannot be turned into Multi caches. :o

 

What Time Is It? and Memories of Mary could be turned into regular caches with little or no effort. It wouldn't matter if it was a multi as the point would be to get the person to see the stage that is special. So thats 3 of the 5 with out even trying, My point is that there are VERY few that can not be done as a multi. There are already multi's that exist that have a large distance between caches. If its ok for a regular multi to be that way then its no different if you use the same thing to make a virtual location a leg of a long distance multi.

 

I just looked at the map for Memories of Mary. There are 2 parks near-by both of which would support at least a small cache container.

Edited by Michael
Link to comment

I'm bumping this thread because it's an important issue that Groundspeak needs to deal with. Virtual Caches ARE A NECESSARY CACHE TYPE. Waymarking is not even close to replacing Virtual Caches, but I suppose it's great if I want to find the nearest Starbucks.

 

I have the perfect location for my next cache. Only problem is, I cannot place a traditional cache there because it is so difficult to get there, that I am sure that I will never return, therefore there can be no cache maintenance. Instead, I want visitors to send me a photo of what is there to prove they found it.

 

I'm trying to place caches that push the limit of what is possible, and that can't always be accomplished with a traditional cache. The hike to this cache is only a few miles roundtrip, yet it takes over 8 hours. It is painstakingly difficult. I'm going to maintain this thing? No way. This is a location that people would be amazed to see. Waymarking would spoil the surprise of what is there, assuming there is an actual Waymarking category for this location (which I doubt).

 

If all of the plastic boxes placed next to the road haven't turned me off of Geocaching, the ban on Virtual Caches certainly has. Virtual Caches DO have a place in Geocaching; they are great for those once in a lifetime experiences that are off the beaten path. I realize that not everyone uses Virtual Caches for that purpose (such as the one I found that was placed smack in the tourist trap area of Great Sand Dunes), but used properly, Virtual Caches are a great adventure.

 

BRING THEM BACK!

I understand that some people loved virtuals as they really allowed you to do somethings that just couldn't be done as a physical cache. Some people really enjoyed that a virtual cache could take you to a really cool or interesting place that you wouldn't have visited otherwise. But to say that virtual caches are A NECESSARY CACHE TYPE is just showing a perception of geocaching that is nowhere near the truth.

 

Virtuals were proposed during the early days of geocaching as a way to place a cache where you couldn't place a physical cache. Mainly that was meant for places where you couldn't get permission to place a physical cache but where geocachers would be allowed to go with their GPS and find a specific target object. In addition there should be a way to confirm that you found the target object in lieu of the physical log book. The confirmation could either be by answering a question or by taking a picture.

 

Unfortunately, geocachers started to place virtuals in or near places where you could place a physical cache if you got permission. It was just easier to place a virtual than to find out who you needed to ask permission. In addition, virtuals got placed because there wasn't a need to maintain the cache to replace the log or check on the physical condition of the cache. They became simply a lazy person's way to hide a cache.

 

The "wow" guideline was added to at least try to limit virtuals to places that really deserved having a cache but where you still couldn't place a physical cache. A virtual location had to be unique with special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. This eliminated the tennis shoe in the wood. But it also became a sore point. A subjective guideline like this caused nothing but headaches for the reviewer community. It became impossible to maintain a consistent definition and this utimately resulted in the demise of virtuals.

 

While looking for waymarks may not exactly match the experience of virtual caches, it does address the wow issue. Yes, there are mundane categories like Starbucks and Sushi Bars. But there are other categories as well. The historic marker category is very popular in part because historic markers were often submitted as virtual targets. They were submitted so often that the guideline specifically called them out as being "generally too common to qualify as virtual caches". Mountain summits, lakes, and scenic views are likewise not good virtual targets but they have their own Waymarking categories. Instead of being "Wow", a waymark must be something that fits a category definition that is managed by a group of individuals that feel these locations are interesting. Waymarking isn't about visiting every Starbucks, unless you are interested in this. Look through the category list and find categories that are interesting to you. Ignore everything else.

 

You claim to have a location that is perfect for your next cache. But you don't want to place a physical container with a log because it would be too difficult to maintain. This is laziness. You haven't indicated why a physical cache can't be placed there other than it is difficult to get to the location. Having both a virtual and physical cache in hard to reach locations, I can tell you that a physical cache will be more appreciated by the finders and will get more visits. Unless you can provide a better reason for not placing a physical cache than it is so difficult to get to that you won't ever get back, I'd have to say you have no argument for bringing back virtuals. Even if there is a good reason you can't place a cache there, it is not NECESSARY that every cool spot have a cache. Geocaching is about finding caches - it is not about taking people to cool places. That is only a nice bonus from time to time.

 

If there is truly something amazing to see there, and very few people know of it or know how to get there, you may want to checkout the Best Kept Secrets Waymarking category.

Link to comment

I'm bumping this thread because it's an important issue that Groundspeak needs to deal with. Virtual Caches ARE A NECESSARY CACHE TYPE. Waymarking is not even close to replacing Virtual Caches, but I suppose it's great if I want to find the nearest Starbucks.

OK, I can't let this part go without comment.

Waymarking is EXACTLY what geocaching would be like if they had continued to allow any old virtual.

 

You're complaining about the quality of waymarks, yet that is proof that those are the kinds of "virtuals" most people would list here if they could (and have in the past).

Fortunately for new cachers like yourself, most of the crappy virtuals have since died a slow and painful death, but it wasn't always the case. I've personally done virtuals that were a tree, a fire hydrant, a telephone pole, a house, a rusting tower, and all sorts of uninteresting crap.

If it's such a remote place, place a high quality hide there (good container like an ammo box in a place it's not gonna be found by non-cachers) and shut up. A *good* hide shouldn't need any maintenence for years to come. It only becomes a problem when people hide crappy containers and/or in poor areas.

 

I absolutely cannot believe your response Mopar. Get back in your car and go driving around and find some more nice roadside caches, it seems to be your full time occupation. Wish I could do that. But in the short time I have available to Hike, I see more than you ever will. If I ever get to place this cache, I can guarantee you will be in tears before you get even half way there.

Link to comment

 

I absolutely cannot believe your response Mopar. Get back in your car and go driving around and find some more nice roadside caches, it seems to be your full time occupation. Wish I could do that. But in the short time I have available to Hike, I see more than you ever will. If I ever get to place this cache, I can guarantee you will be in tears before you get even half way there.

Really?

I see you've logged 4 finds. 3 of those 4 are listed as 1 terrain (so easy a person can reach the location in a wheelchair) and one terrain 2.

I think you mixed up your cache finds with mine. You seem to be the one with the love of roadside micros.

I haven't even logged a find online in the last 2 years, but I was caching out your way in May. I found 11 caches.

One was a 1.5 terrain

One was a 2 terrain

Six were 2.5 terrain

Two were 3.5 terrain

One was a 4 terrain

I'd be happy to send you the list if you care to check the logbooks, but since all but 2 are more difficult to reach then any cache you've done so far they are probably too tough for you.

 

This pic was taken on that trip, near a cache many miles from the nearest paved road:

killmehg8.jpg

 

This is from a terrain 4.5 cache in AZ a few years back:

1381797178_l.jpg

The car is parked at the base of that mountain on the horizon. There was no trail. That hike got harder in the first 50ft then any cache you've ever logged.

Link to comment

I absolutely cannot believe your response Mopar. Get back in your car and go driving around and find some more nice roadside caches, it seems to be your full time occupation. Wish I could do that. But in the short time I have available to Hike, I see more than you ever will. If I ever get to place this cache, I can guarantee you will be in tears before you get even half way there.

Really?

I see you've logged 4 finds. 3 of those 4 are listed as 1 terrain (so easy a person can reach the location in a wheelchair) and one terrain 2.

I think you mixed up your cache finds with mine. You seem to be the one with the love of roadside micros.

I haven't even logged a find online in the last 2 years, but I was caching out your way in May. I found 11 caches.

One was a 1.5 terrain

One was a 2 terrain

Six were 2.5 terrain

Two were 3.5 terrain

One was a 4 terrain

I'd be happy to send you the list if you care to check the logbooks, but since all but 2 are more difficult to reach then any cache you've done so far they are probably too tough for you.

 

This pic was taken on that trip, near a cache many miles from the nearest paved road:

<snipped the image>

 

This is from a terrain 4.5 cache in AZ a few years back:

<awesome Arizona cache image snipped>

The car is parked at the base of that mountain on the horizon. There was no trail. That hike got harder in the first 50ft then any cache you've ever logged.

In fact, Mopar didn't mention that his WEDDING was a TERRAIN 5 wedding!!! He was able to list it as a cache and to attend you had to have special equipment. SpaceHiker, I would recommend that you do at least one minute of research before you make such an erroneous post, which makes you look totally uninformed. If you want to take a shot at someone about driving around finding caches, you would probably have been better off taking a shot at me, but I also have my fair share of insane hikes. That includes the famous cache in GA that inspired the term "lizard crawl", which I did by myself on the spur of the moment with no safety equipment right after doing another great but short mountain cache placed by one of the great North GA cache hiders (was a great one for a milestone cache).

 

Speaking of "I see more than you ever will", I really need to finish adding some photos to my web page. SpaceHiker, it is linked off of my profile. Feel free to glance at it so you can see some things that *you* will probably never see. You might want to take notice of the Warthog Down section. :laughing:

Link to comment

I'm sure this has been beaten to death, but I wish to add my input.

I recently made a trip to D.C. Most all caches there are virtuals. I am now a firm believer that virtuals should be brought back to Geocaching.

 

I know that Waymarking was suppose to be the new place for virtuals and locationless, and I am all for leaveing locationless out of this site, but Virtuals have value as Geocaches. I had a cache that was moved over to Waymarking and I'm not really sure it fit into any category, but once ownership was removed and switched over to group management I wanted nothing to do with Waymarking.

 

I wish to own my caches and own my finds. To take pride in them. Locationless do not take you to a place, they are more like a collection of things you come across, but Geocaches and virtuals do. The whole idea is that you use your GPS technology to lead you to a coordinate. Where it takes you and what it shows you is where quality caching comes in. I could care less if there is junk at the end or not, but I do care if it provides some value. The virtuals I experienced in DC did that. Waymarking never has.

 

Sorry, nice try on the new site. Maybe others will use it, but I for one would like Virtuals returned.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I can't understand anyone being against virtuals but allowing all of these crappy micros. We have done virtuals in several states while traveling and they have taken us to places we wouldn't have known about otherwise. When we are planning a trip that's the first thing I look for along our route. I have been on the Waymarking site a couple of times and it's just not the same. But I think we're beating a dead horse, the powers that be decided they don't want to be bothered with them and they own the site.

Link to comment

I have said this in other threads on this topic but it bears repeating:

 

I agree that virtuals in the past had significant problems with them and often the site could have been used as a stage in a multi or similar.

 

BUT, there are some very particular circumstances in which virtuals would be useful to have and could be better defined. There are situations where they are the only possiblity for geocachers. There are places that are quite willing to accept virtuals (and by extension cachers hunting caches) but will not accept any physical cache. Examples include Disneyworld (and other theme parks), Provinical parks, some state park systems etc. A definition that limited virtuals to these type of sites, where physical caching is prohibited would work and allow geocachers to learn about and explore areas that otherwise they wouldn't know about.

 

To those who say Waymarking takes care of this, I am on Waymarking and manage several categories and can say without hesitation that it does not take care of this issue.A waymark is closer to the old locationaless than it is to the virtual cache concept. In fact the Waymarking concept is so diluted with poor to meaningless categories that's it relevance is becoming increasingly undermined, and that's coming from people I know who began with Waymarking when it started and used to promote its virtues.

 

So, as I've said previously and here, bring back virtuals but limit them to places that have declared that they absolutely will not allow physical caches. And, there could also be a guideline that says remove them when the site allows physical caches.

 

JD

Link to comment

Rather than restricting virtuals to places which prohibit physicals, perhaps a better way would be the Earthcache approach. Have an organization outside gc.com which certifies caches as appropriate within a context. Find an historical society (or more realistically, a geocacher who is a member in good standing with an historical society) to certify history-related virtuals. Perhaps a hiking group would certify scenic wilderness caches. Etc.

 

Edward

Link to comment

Rather than restricting virtuals to places which prohibit physicals, perhaps a better way would be the Earthcache approach. Have an organization outside gc.com which certifies caches as appropriate within a context.

 

Not a bad idea but, around here anyway, the quality of Earthcaches have sunk to the point where they are just the modern day equivalent of the lame Virts that got Virts killed off in the first place.

Link to comment

Rather than restricting virtuals to places which prohibit physicals, perhaps a better way would be the Earthcache approach. Have an organization outside gc.com which certifies caches as appropriate within a context.

 

Not a bad idea but, around here anyway, the quality of Earthcaches have sunk to the point where they are just the modern day equivalent of the lame Virts that got Virts killed off in the first place.

 

If 'lameness' mattered that much, you'd see one heckofa lot less regular geocaches around than you do. I had heard that it had something to do with the fact that there was no physical container, you know, a cache.

Link to comment
the quality of Earthcaches have sunk
I don't doubt it. I ran across the Barringer Crater earthcache recently. The writeup is good but the educational activity is basically missing -- the description actually says "Somewhere along the way, my original proof of visit requirements got dropped." The "activity" is "email me how deep the crater looks like it is". The site is great and worthy of an earthcache of course but the cache is lame. (I saw it from an airplane last month. I can guess how deep it is. Should I log it?)

 

So has anyone investigated how this came to pass? Is the Geological Society not taking it seriously? Are the earthcaches being modified after approval (as it looks like happened with Barringer Crater)? Something else? Has anyone brought up the issue to the society?

 

Obviously a main point of involving an outside group is to take the heat off the gc.com reviewers along with guaranteeing quality. Maybe the reviewers still need to review the outside organization. (But then who reviews the reviewer reviewers?)

 

Edward

Link to comment

Obviously virtual caches is still an issue after Waymarking has been around for quite a while. This would tell most people that Waymarking is NOT taking care of a need. This need would be finding interesting locations that will not support a traditional cache.

 

I have been to Waymarking several times. I have even logged a waymark or two. I have also decided that like locationless caches, I will not visit the site unless I am so totally bored and have absolutely nothing to do that anything would be better than nothing. Sorry, there is so much junk on that site that the good stuff is lost.

 

On the flip side, we do find all the virtuals that we can. We find them fun to find and usually very educational. When telling people about geocaching and the great places it takes us, two of the caches we always mention are virtuals. One is in historic Albuquerque, NM and the other old Rt 66 crossing the Mississippi river. Both were places that I wouldn't have gone to see if not for a virtual cache.

 

As for making most virtuals a multi, yes, that is an option. However, many people like me visit virtuals while on vacation. Because I don't know the time needed for a multi, we just don't even look at them when traveling. I do however, print out most if not all of the virtuals in any given area.

 

I thought the idea was to get people involved using a GPS to find points of interest/caches. There are those who can not do long mountain hikes. There are those who can not get off the beaten path. Should we exclude these people? Should we make life more difficult?

 

Perhaps instead of calling the containerless caches where you must answer question at virtual, we coiuld call them non-traditional. By doing that, you could do multi non-traditional caches, puzzle ones and expand the game instead of limit it.

 

In the meantime, thank you to all the virtual cache owners. Thank you for letting me learn more about this great country that I live in. Thank you for taking me places that I can share with my youngest grandchild and my elderly mother. Thank you for making my vacations more special.

 

Terri

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...