Grandfathered virtuals ?

[+mtn-man]

" ...Ansel Adams Photo Locations...

 

Now that would be KEWL! As a huge fan of Adams, for more years than I care to admit, I've long fantasized about that very thing - being able to stand where he stood and see what I could do with it (was heavily into photograpy at the fantasy onset), plus, experience first-hand (first-eye?) how the subject had changed over time. I feared in most cases the latter might be an unpleasant finding, but still...... *sigh* Dreams.

That is a category I manage, and it is really cool to be where he was.

 

My homage to the great one...

 

 

And his original photo...

 

There is this geocache at this famous Ansel Adams location:

There is a virtual cache at the location where I took that picture, since it is a National Park. Kill virtual caches, and that view is gone for geocachers.

[+wimseyguy]

<SNIP>

Logs like these are why I keep it up:

• I have never noticed this as many times as I have been by this location
  
• Thanks for bringing me here to learn something about the history of your beautiful state.
  
• The beauty of geocaching is the fact that you you stop to actually look at the things that the average person would drive by hundreds of times and never notice. This is another wonderful example! Thank you!
  
• I read up a little on the history of this "Father of Tennessee" and found it quite interesting.
  

I also don't see "a lot of forum threads are created about this" as a valid reason to eliminate an entire segment of geocaching history.

 

<SIGH> and for balance my seven stage multi with historical and geological educational info that actually does end in an ammo box in a park just got a "tftc" log. Not even an upper case TFTC.

I hope they had more fun that than.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread griping about virtual caches.

[+TrailGators]

" ...Ansel Adams Photo Locations...

 

Now that would be KEWL! As a huge fan of Adams, for more years than I care to admit, I've long fantasized about that very thing - being able to stand where he stood and see what I could do with it (was heavily into photograpy at the fantasy onset), plus, experience first-hand (first-eye?) how the subject had changed over time. I feared in most cases the latter might be an unpleasant finding, but still...... *sigh* Dreams.

That is a category I manage, and it is really cool to be where he was.

 

My homage to the great one...

 

 

And his original photo...

 

There is this geocache at this famous Ansel Adams location:

There is a virtual cache at the location where I took that picture, since it is a National Park. Kill virtual caches, and that view is gone for geocachers.

That would be a shame because it is the main reason I geocache.

[+sbell111]

<SNIP>

Logs like these are why I keep it up:

• I have never noticed this as many times as I have been by this location
  
• Thanks for bringing me here to learn something about the history of your beautiful state.
  
• The beauty of geocaching is the fact that you you stop to actually look at the things that the average person would drive by hundreds of times and never notice. This is another wonderful example! Thank you!
  
• I read up a little on the history of this "Father of Tennessee" and found it quite interesting.
  

I also don't see "a lot of forum threads are created about this" as a valid reason to eliminate an entire segment of geocaching history.

 

<SIGH> and for balance my seven stage multi with historical and geological educational info that actually does end in an ammo box in a park just got a "tftc" log. Not even an upper case TFTC.

I hope they had more fun that than.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread griping about virtual caches.

Perhaps, like some forum posters, they simply don't believe in the use of caps.

[+Lil Devil]

There is a virtual cache at the location where I took that picture, since it is a National Park. Kill virtual caches, and that view is gone for geocachers.

Yeah, like geocachers would never go to Yosemite if they couldn't geocache

 

Sure, I found a bunch of the virts in Yosemite a few years ago, but quite frankly none of them were memorable enough that I remember squat about them now. I do remember the awesome views, and I'll certainly go back, even though there are almost no [virtual] caches left for me to find there.

[+joranda]

Why? They are not geocaches.

Well, then neither are Earth Caches... Should they go away?

In my opinion, yes. I've found over 35 earthcaches. Looking back at the list, I'd say about 5 of them were truly interesting. Almost all the locations could have held a physical cache. Indeed, about half of them did have a physical cache within a couple hundred feet. Oh boy I get a twofer just for taking a picture and counting fence posts or naming three of the birds on the information sign.

 

The problem is the vast majority are just lame virtuals that someone managed to sneak through the system by writing up something geological about the place.

 

I guess you have never found a lame cache either? How many fun lamp post have you found or a hide a key on a gaurd rail. Those are always fun to do too. I like the ability to do all the different kinds of caches, let it be a container in the woods or a earthcache that takes me to a waterfall, even the lamp post and the erratic boulder next to a parking lot. I enjoy them all. At least someone took the time to bring me to the spot.

[+mtn-man]

There is a virtual cache at the location where I took that picture, since it is a National Park. Kill virtual caches, and that view is gone for geocachers.

Yeah, like geocachers would never go to Yosemite if they couldn't geocache

Of course, but my visit and your visit there highlights the good thing about these types of virtual caches.

 

When we visited, we loaded them all in and just sort of drove around like the typical tourist. We drove in and around the loop to the end and ate lunch at the main dining room for the lodge there. That was awesome. Window seat, did not need a smiley to enjoy that. We then took a short hike to a virtual to a hidden waterfall. Interesting to see graffiti from some of the first visitors inside this area. When we drove back out, I said I wanted to go up and check out another virtual cache on the map that I thought was up the road and up the hill. We went up and parked and were greeted with the view I posted. Immediately my jaw dropped as I realized what I was looking at. It was the location of one of Ansel Adams most famous photos. I was stunned. Without the virtual, I might have just kept going thinking this was just yet another pull-off overlook. It was far from that. If you are telling me that you went to Yosemite and don't remember that view, then I feel sorry for you. It is one of the most famous ones there is. There is no sign there that says "The Famous Ansel Adams Photo Overlook".

 

Sure, I found a bunch of the virts in Yosemite a few years ago, but quite frankly none of them were memorable enough that I remember squat about them now. I do remember the awesome views, and I'll certainly go back, even though there are almost no [virtual] caches left for me to find there.

Dude, you gotta' know it is easy to check logs. You found two, both down by the lodge area. You found one mystery cache, which is basically a virtual. That gave you three in the park. There are still 16 true virtuals, two multicache virtuals and one mystery cache virtual still waiting for you -- including the one that will give you the view in my photo above. The ones I did were certainly memorable and I did not even make the two up at Glacier Point (close because of snow the day we were there). You picked a few poor caches maybe, but I certainly picked a few good ones.

[+TrailGators]

You picked a few poor caches maybe, but I certainly picked a few good ones.

This is why I always ask what the must-do caches are before I go somewhere.

[+debtodd007]

I don't log virtuals but have visited a number of them. Some are interesting and historical, some are a waste of time. Often one really pertinent one makes up for 5 or 6 that lack significance to me. Surprisingly, some of the ones I find of particular interest are in areas where an actual cache could have been placed anyway.

 

Living in Montana, I've visited Glacier Park many time and hiked many of the trials during the 10 years I lived in Missoula. Now I live closer to Yellowstone Park which I visit every October, December, Febuary, April, and rarley a time or two in May-August. I believe most of the virtuals in these two great National Parks are of no special interest. However, there are some gems in both parks.

 

Sidenote - 7 or 8 years ago my wife purchased a book with 100 day hikes in Yellowstone National Park. We checked off close to 45 of them. A couple of years ago I ran into a ranger who was displaying pictures of his time in the park, somewhere close to 20 years worth. We got to comparing favorite hikes in the park and some our favorites were the same has his. He stated very few people ever hike many of our joint favorites.

 

Second sidenote: Yellowstone Park in the winter is a totally different world. My family has spent the week between Christmas and New Years in Yellowstone since 1996, mostly X-crounty skiing and sledding. Often you are all alone on the trails and hearing wolves howl, or coyotes yipping is pretty cool. Everyone should visit Yellowstone in the winter once in their lifetime.

 

If you don't like winter then I'd say the best time of the year to visit Yellowstone is late September, early October. This is actually my favoratime time. All the tourists are gone, Elk are bugling, bears are active stuffing themselves for winter and fall colors are beautiful.

[+Lil Devil]

If you are telling me that you went to Yosemite and don't remember that view, then I feel sorry for you.

I didn't say that. I said I don't remember the virts.

 

Sure, I found a bunch of the virts in Yosemite a few years ago, but quite frankly none of them were memorable enough that I remember squat about them now. I do remember the awesome views, and I'll certainly go back, even though there are almost no [virtual] caches left for me to find there.

Dude, you gotta' know it is easy to check logs. You found two, both down by the lodge area. You found one mystery cache, which is basically a virtual. That gave you three in the park. There are still 16 true virtuals, two multicache virtuals and one mystery cache virtual still waiting for you -- including the one that will give you the view in my photo above.

You missed a few. Are you using my script to search? I actually found eight, including two mystery virts and one multi virt. I know I've stopped at "The Famous Ansel Adams Photo Overlook" but I'm not sure if I logged that virt. Which one is it?

 

I've also been up to Glacier Point many times, and I didn't need a virtual cache to get me there.

 

You picked a few poor caches maybe, but I certainly picked a few good ones.

And that right there pretty much gets to the point. There are way too many poor virtuals out there, which makes it near impossible to find the few good ones, short of luck. I've found over 400 virtual caches and only 3 of them are on my favorites list, and there's maybe a dozen total could be considered "good." That's a pretty poor ratio. I could bring up my desire for a rating system, to make it easier to find the good ones, but that's fodder for a whole 'nuther thread.

[+sbell111]

There are way too many poor virtuals out there, which makes it near impossible to find the few good ones, short of luck. I've found over 400 virtual caches and only 3 of them are on my favorites list, and there's maybe a dozen total could be considered "good." That's a pretty poor ratio. I could bring up my desire for a rating system, to make it easier to find the good ones, but that's fodder for a whole 'nuther thread'.

I'm convinced that many time when people post something like 'there's no way to target good caches' that it's shorthand for 'I don't feel like putting in the small effort that it would take to identify the caches that I would enjoy'. For instance, I'm reasonably sure taht the gallery for the virt that mtn-man discussed is chock full of adams-like pics. That would be a pretty good indication that it was a cool spot and wouldn't take that much effort to figure it out. Sure, it's more effort than the load-and-go folks care to take, but it semas that it would be worth it.

[+tozainamboku]

There are way too many poor virtuals out there, which makes it near impossible to find the few good ones, short of luck. I've found over 400 virtual caches and only 3 of them are on my favorites list, and there's maybe a dozen total could be considered "good." That's a pretty poor ratio. I could bring up my desire for a rating system, to make it easier to find the good ones, but that's fodder for a whole 'nuther thread'.

I'm convinced that many time when people post something like 'there's no way to target good caches' that it's shorthand for 'I don't feel like putting in the small effort that it would take to identify the caches that I would enjoy'. For instance, I'm reasonably sure taht the gallery for the virt that mtn-man discussed is chock full of adams-like pics. That would be a pretty good indication that it was a cool spot and wouldn't take that much effort to figure it out. Sure, it's more effort than the load-and-go folks care to take, but it semas that it would be worth it.

Of course if these were waymarks instead of virtual caches it would be much easier to find the ones that I would enjoy. If l'm into photography or just a fan of Ansel Adams I would find waymarks in this category. If I want to see examples of the geological forces that formed Yosemite Valley, I could look for waymarks in this category. If I wanted to see the historic buildings in the park I could look here or here. if I like waterfalls, I can find them here. I couldn't find a category for the graffiti left by some of the first visitors to the area (unless these were Native American), however if someone were to submit this as a Best Kept Secret it might just get approved.

[+Lil Devil]

I'm convinced that many time when people post something like 'there's no way to target good caches' that it's shorthand for 'I don't feel like putting in the small effort that it would take to identify the caches that I would enjoy'. For instance, I'm reasonably sure that the gallery for the virt that mtn-man discussed is chock full of adams-like pics.

You have a good point, and in a place like Yosemite, where there are less than two dozen caches to look at, your suggestion is a good one. However, for the typical road trip that I might go on, I could pass within 1/4 mile of several hundred caches every day. It's not practical to open the gallery or read the logs on every single one to evaluate whether it's a good cache or not. Granted, there will be far less virtuals (the subject of this thread) but I still don't think it's a practical solution.

 

Then again, many virtuals are not about an overall view, but rather of one specific object. Usually the confirmation questions are based on that object so the cache owner will ask that pictures not uploaded. Checking the galleries won't help in these cases.

[+sbell111]

I'm convinced that many time when people post something like 'there's no way to target good caches' that it's shorthand for 'I don't feel like putting in the small effort that it would take to identify the caches that I would enjoy'. For instance, I'm reasonably sure that the gallery for the virt that mtn-man discussed is chock full of adams-like pics.

You have a good point, and in a place like Yosemite, where there are less than two dozen caches to look at, your suggestion is a good one. However, for the typical road trip that I might go on, I could pass within 1/4 mile of several hundred caches every day. It's not practical to open the gallery or read the logs on every single one to evaluate whether it's a good cache or not. ...

The thing is, you don't need to look at every cache page. You only need to look at the next cache page prior to hitting <goto>. That only takes a few seconds. Sure, you might still go after a few stinkers and miss a few great ones, but your odds are better.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I guess the person who explained it to you wasn't 100% accurate. I still own a virt, and submitted it because I thought it was an interesting enough history lesson to stand on its own as a cache back in the days when virts were still being published. After a little discussion with the reviewer, it was published. Sure I could easily place a small container at this crossroads, as could anyone else could too since virts no longer get 528' of protection around them.

 

But I strongly suspect that a lot of the seekers of that cache wouldn't even bother to read the marker, survey the surroundings, and consider the history if there was a container at this simple country crossroads, there so I choose to leave it as a virt. This one is all about the marker, and not the location.

 

Logs like these are why I keep it up:

• I have never noticed this as many times as I have been by this location
  
• Thanks for bringing me here to learn something about the history of your beautiful state.
  
• The beauty of geocaching is the fact that you you stop to actually look at the things that the average person would drive by hundreds of times and never notice. This is another wonderful example! Thank you!
  
• I read up a little on the history of this "Father of Tennessee" and found it quite interesting.
  

I also don't see "a lot of forum threads are created about this" as a valid reason to eliminate an entire segment of geocaching history.

Any virt that can handle a physical cache in the location can be a Mystery with the exact same requirements to log.

Better yet you can use the plaque/marker to reveal the location of the cache and there by receive the same kind of logs.

[+lcandela123]

Personally, I think virtuals are great, but new ones have been banished to some lesser site.

[+wimseyguy]

Yes I could and stated that in the post you quoted. Perhaps the rest of my post was too subtle or obtuse?

I want this to remain listed as a virtual cache.

I do not want this to be a mystery or puzzle. Many cachers filter them or ignore them. I want cachers to view and enjoy the marker and location.

Edited March 15, 2009 by wimseyguy

[+Cryptid]

Fortunately the carcass was never published. Granted, I haven't been able to find the actual submission. It resides in folklore at this point.

 

"I found a shoe tree once, that originally had a film can in one of the shoes. When that went missing, the cache owner "converted" it to a virtual. Later when I was a reviewer I went back and archived it when conversions became verboten."

 

I think I know that Cache, it's on Highway 395 north of Reno.

[+The Inkwell]

We've found virtual caches in Zion, Death Valley, Petrified Forest, Smoky Mountains, etc., etc.,..many of these virtual caches have been some of the best caching experiences that we've had to date I hope that the grandfathered virtuals never go away.

[+TrailGators]

Fortunately the carcass was never published. Granted, I haven't been able to find the actual submission. It resides in folklore at this point.

 

"I found a shoe tree once, that originally had a film can in one of the shoes. When that went missing, the cache owner "converted" it to a virtual. Later when I was a reviewer I went back and archived it when conversions became verboten."

 

I think I know that Cache, it's on Highway 395 north of Reno.

Now shoe trees are a Waymarking category.

[+captnemo]

I like all types of good, well placed caches. I would rather do a good virtual then a poor regular.

 

Waypointing sounds like something you would do while sailing.

 

I don't like a micro where a larger cache would work, what's the point.

 

IMHO

[+tozainamboku]

I like all types of good, well made ice cream. I would rather eat a good sherbet then a poor ice cream.

 

Waypointing (sic) sounds like something you would do while sailing.

 

I don't like chocolate chip where plain vanilla would work, what's the point.

 

IMHO

 

Thanks for sharing. We all have our personal preferences. Some people actually do enjoy finding virtuals. Sometimes they would prefer a virtual cache over some types of traditional caches. For some strange reason, the type of traditional cache which is less preferable to a virtual is often a micro placed in some location where a person doesn't think a micro should be placed. Perhaps the preference is regular size, followed by no container to find at all, followed by a micro container.

 

Waymarking provides a way to find interesting places to visit with no requirement to find any cache. Some times there is a verification question or a requirement to post a picture like a virtual cache and some times you can just write about your visit. You can avoid looking for McDonalds restaurants and shoe trees if these don't seem to "Wow" you.

[+TrailGators]

I like all types of good, well made ice cream. I would rather eat a good sherbet then a poor ice cream.

 

Waypointing (sic) sounds like something you would do while sailing.

 

I don't like chocolate chip where plain vanilla would work, what's the point.

 

IMHO

 

Thanks for sharing. We all have our personal preferences. Some people actually do enjoy finding virtuals. Sometimes they would prefer a virtual cache over some types of traditional caches. For some strange reason, the type of traditional cache which is less preferable to a virtual is often a micro placed in some location where a person doesn't think a micro should be placed. Perhaps the preference is regular size, followed by no container to find at all, followed by a micro container.

 

Waymarking provides a way to find interesting places to visit with no requirement to find any cache. Some times there is a verification question or a requirement to post a picture like a virtual cache and some times you can just write about your visit. You can avoid looking for McDonalds restaurants and shoe trees if these don't seem to "Wow" you.

The filtering on Waymarking is very powerful. GC needs that kind of power.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Yes I could and stated that in the post you quoted. Perhaps the rest of my post was too subtle or obtuse?

I want this to remain listed as a virtual cache.

I do not want this to be a mystery or puzzle. Many cachers filter them or ignore them. I want cachers to view and enjoy the marker and location.

Your "want" was clear yet not pertinent to the proposed argument, and many cachers also filter virts because they say "This is geocaching not geoshowingup" or something like that.

Wanting or not wanting a virt that can support a cache, to exists has nothing to do with trying to reason out whether it should or should not exist as a virt.

I'm not trying to say get rid of them, one little click (a click I'll never do) and I don't have to see them on my map, and just because I will do them doesn't mean that I can't see why they shouldn't be.

Eliminate how you feel about your virt and ask yourself "In light of what geocaching is, should it be a virt?"

 

Another argument I have found to be logical is the verification requirement with an absent owner. A mystery cache with a verification requirement can get archived because of an absent owner even if the physical cache still exists, why not a virt?

[+The Jester]

Another argument I have found to be logical is the verification requirement with an absent owner. A mystery cache with a verification requirement can get archived because of an absent owner even if the physical cache still exists, why not a virt?

Virtuals are archived all the time for absent owner - if you don't log on every month or so they can be axed.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Another argument I have found to be logical is the verification requirement with an absent owner. A mystery cache with a verification requirement can get archived because of an absent owner even if the physical cache still exists, why not a virt?

Virtuals are archived all the time for absent owner - if you don't log on every month or so they can be axed.

Interesting. AC virt loggers that look for AOs would lead one to believe otherwise. I have seen false logs on AO verts stricken but never an archive or TD.

How extreme do things have to get before it happens?

[Dinoprophet]

The filtering on Waymarking is very powerful. GC needs that kind of power.

Very much agreed. And the search just got upgraded. I hope that gets migrated here soon.

[+geodarts]

I have always enjoyed caching for the places that it has taken me -- and tend to judge any cache on this basis. So when I am traveling, I usually look to see whether there are any virtuals (or earth caches) and will go to them before doing physical containers. Since I am the only one in my family who caches, there is a limit as to how many lamp posts they want to visit -- or how much time I can spend looking for a well-hidden bison tube in a shopping center. But virtuals often identify things that the owner specifically wanted me to see, so I will take a chance on them.

 

Some virtuals have taken me to fun places that I would not have known about otherwise -- would I really have discovered the birthplace of the Martini without a virtual? Probably not. And while I would have visited the rim of the Grand Canyon without the virtuals being there, the fact that they were there added to the trip.

 

Although many have not been memorable per se, the same is true of any cache. One of my favorite physical caches was on Huayna Picchu, the peak overlooking Macchu Picchu. I don't remember that much about the hide and would have gone to the location even if the cache had not been there. But it was a fun part of the game.

 

Waymarking is too expansive for me -- its hard enough to keep track of caches without adding a game that includes everything from McDonalds to historical sites. So the virtuals that are left are very much appreciated.

[+sbell111]

Another argument I have found to be logical is the verification requirement with an absent owner. A mystery cache with a verification requirement can get archived because of an absent owner even if the physical cache still exists, why not a virt?

Virtuals are archived all the time for absent owner - if you don't log on every month or so they can be axed.

Interesting. AC virt loggers that look for AOs would lead one to believe otherwise. I have seen false logs on AO verts stricken but never an archive or TD.

How extreme do things have to get before it happens?

I'd like to buy a vowel, please.

[+mtn-man]

I'd like to buy a vowel, please.

Whew. So it wasn't just me.

Edited March 16, 2009 by mtn-man

[+TrailGators]

I'd like to buy a vowel, please.

Whew. So it wasn't just me.

I have no idea what that meant either. Maybe he'll explain... Edited March 17, 2009 by TrailGators

[+darklighter]

IMHO, a virtual ain't a cache: no container = no cache.

 

Fortunately, I have the option of simply choosing not to do a virtual when I want to go caching. If it were up to me, virtuals wouldn't exist on this site, but it's no skin off my back that they do. =)

[+The Jester]

Another argument I have found to be logical is the verification requirement with an absent owner. A mystery cache with a verification requirement can get archived because of an absent owner even if the physical cache still exists, why not a virt?

Virtuals are archived all the time for absent owner - if you don't log on every month or so they can be axed.

Interesting. AC virt loggers that look for AOs would lead one to believe otherwise. I have seen false logs on AO verts stricken but never an archive or TD.

How extreme do things have to get before it happens?

I don't know how extreme things have to be, but I saw it happen on this cache.

[+TrailGators]

Another argument I have found to be logical is the verification requirement with an absent owner. A mystery cache with a verification requirement can get archived because of an absent owner even if the physical cache still exists, why not a virt?

Virtuals are archived all the time for absent owner - if you don't log on every month or so they can be axed.

Interesting. AC virt loggers that look for AOs would lead one to believe otherwise. I have seen false logs on AO verts stricken but never an archive or TD.

How extreme do things have to get before it happens?

I don't know how extreme things have to be, but I saw it happen on this cache.

They could blow away a lot of caches if they applied that same logic to non-virts.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Another argument I have found to be logical is the verification requirement with an absent owner. A mystery cache with a verification requirement can get archived because of an absent owner even if the physical cache still exists, why not a virt?

Virtuals are archived all the time for absent owner - if you don't log on every month or so they can be axed.

Interesting. AC virt loggers that look for AOs would lead one to believe otherwise. I have seen false logs on AO verts stricken but never an archive or TD.

How extreme do things have to get before it happens?

I'd like to buy a vowel, please.

I hope you know what AC & TD means after all I'm not the first person to use them in the forums.

AO= absent owner

I apologize for assuming that in conjunction with a previous post of mine the abbreviation would be blatantly obvious.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I don't know how extreme things have to be, but I saw it happen on this cache.

They could blow away a lot of caches if they applied that same logic to non-virts.

I would have let that one live with an Absent Owner considering the logging requirements don't require any owner interaction.

[+sbell111]

Another argument I have found to be logical is the verification requirement with an absent owner. A mystery cache with a verification requirement can get archived because of an absent owner even if the physical cache still exists, why not a virt?

Virtuals are archived all the time for absent owner - if you don't log on every month or so they can be axed.

Interesting. AC virt loggers that look for AOs would lead one to believe otherwise. I have seen false logs on AO verts stricken but never an archive or TD.

How extreme do things have to get before it happens?

I'd like to buy a vowel, please.

I hope you know what AC & TD means after all I'm not the first person to use them in the forums.

AO= absent owner

I apologize for assuming that in conjunction with a previous post of mine the abbreviation would be blatantly obvious.

AC = Alternating Current, TD = Touchdown ???

[+wesleykey]

Does anyone know why they grandfathered the virtual cache and if they may reverse this?

 

It has been reversed. Caches with no container are now called Earthcaches. You just need to educate folks in earth science when you place them.

[+mtn-man]

Another argument I have found to be logical is the verification requirement with an absent owner. A mystery cache with a verification requirement can get archived because of an absent owner even if the physical cache still exists, why not a virt?

Virtuals are archived all the time for absent owner - if you don't log on every month or so they can be axed.

Interesting. AC virt loggers that look for AOs would lead one to believe otherwise. I have seen false logs on AO verts stricken but never an archive or TD.

How extreme do things have to get before it happens?

I'd like to buy a vowel, please.

I hope you know what AC & TD means after all I'm not the first person to use them in the forums.

AO= absent owner

I apologize for assuming that in conjunction with a previous post of mine the abbreviation would be blatantly obvious.

AC = Alternating Current, TD = Touchdown ???

I'm getting AC as "arm chair". From TD my brain also sees "touchdown" though.

[+Ambrosia]

Ah ha, I think I got it!!! TD = Temporarily Disabled?

 

What do I win?

 

(Not obvious abbreviations to me, even though I'm in these forums a bunch, but I tried to guess at it by looking at the context.)

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Found a great location for a virtual? Make it one stage of a multicache, problem solved.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't know how extreme things have to be, but I saw it happen on this cache.

They could blow away a lot of caches if they applied that same logic to non-virts.

I would have let that one live with an Absent Owner considering the logging requirements don't require any owner interaction.

The guidelines for maintenance of grandfathered virtual caches and webcams is different than the guidelines for maintenance of other cache types. In particular, the guideline for visiting the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month and the automatic archiving of "abandoned" caches is only called out for virtual caches and web cams. My guess is that TPTB would like to eventually archive all grandfathered virtuals and webcams. To this effect they no longer allow these caches to be adopted and they have this additional clause in their maintenance guidelines. Physical caches can still be archived if not maintained, however they don't have an abandonment clause. If the community is still maintaining a viable cache, the reviewers will not archive the cache just because the owner is no longer participating.

 

I notice that the guidelines for regular caches still say, "In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing." Given the policy of no longer having non-consensual adoption it seems the guidelines need to updated.

[+TrailGators]

I don't know how extreme things have to be, but I saw it happen on this cache.

They could blow away a lot of caches if they applied that same logic to non-virts.

I would have let that one live with an Absent Owner considering the logging requirements don't require any owner interaction.

The guidelines for maintenance of grandfathered virtual caches and webcams is different than the guidelines for maintenance of other cache types. In particular, the guideline for visiting the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month and the automatic archiving of "abandoned" caches is only called out for virtual caches and web cams. My guess is that TPTB would like to eventually archive all grandfathered virtuals and webcams. To this effect they no longer allow these caches to be adopted and they have this additional clause in their maintenance guidelines. Physical caches can still be archived if not maintained, however they don't have an abandonment clause. If the community is still maintaining a viable cache, the reviewers will not archive the cache just because the owner is no longer participating.

 

I notice that the guidelines for regular caches still say, "In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing." Given the policy of no longer having non-consensual adoption it seems the guidelines need to updated.

I realize that. It is just odd that potential geo-liter would not have the same strict maintenance requirements as a virtual.

Edited March 17, 2009 by TrailGators

[+mtn-man]

Ah ha, I think I got it!!! TD = Temporarily Disabled?

 

What do I win?

 

(Not obvious abbreviations to me, even though I'm in these forums a bunch, but I tried to guess at it by looking at the context.)

 

Yet another year of being fed grapes by your humble slave, my dear.

Edited March 17, 2009 by mtn-man

[+tozainamboku]

I don't know how extreme things have to be, but I saw it happen on this cache.

They could blow away a lot of caches if they applied that same logic to non-virts.

I would have let that one live with an Absent Owner considering the logging requirements don't require any owner interaction.

The guidelines for maintenance of grandfathered virtual caches and webcams is different than the guidelines for maintenance of other cache types. In particular, the guideline for visiting the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month and the automatic archiving of "abandoned" caches is only called out for virtual caches and web cams. My guess is that TPTB would like to eventually archive all grandfathered virtuals and webcams. To this effect they no longer allow these caches to be adopted and they have this additional clause in their maintenance guidelines. Physical caches can still be archived if not maintained, however they don't have an abandonment clause. If the community is still maintaining a viable cache, the reviewers will not archive the cache just because the owner is no longer participating.

 

I notice that the guidelines for regular caches still say, "In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing." Given the policy of no longer having non-consensual adoption it seems the guidelines need to updated.

I realize that. It is just odd that potential geo-liter would not have the same strict maintenance requirements as a virtual.

Well you could use that argument and archive this cache. The owner has been absent a long time. But the geocaching community thinks enough of this oldest active cache in Los Angeles county that they maintain it. One good cacher who found the original tupperware container with a deteriorated lid and full of mud and water

hiked back up the 4 star terrain the next week to replace it with an ammo can

This old cache was hidden with intentionally bad coordinates and rather long encrypted hint that tells not only where to look but also how to find the trail head. Newer cachers who want to have traditional caches be ones you can find without reading the cache page and the logs have been trying to get the coordinates changed to be where the cache is. But there is no owner to make the change. One guy even posted an SBA in the hopes that the reviewer would change the coordinates. I personally wouldn't mind if they archived this cache, but if they do let me know so I can climb up that mountain yet again to get my ammo can back.

[+Singletree Expedition]

I hope you know what AC & TD means after all I'm not the first person to use them in the forums.

Yeah, someone used the "AC" abbreviation here. Oh wait! I think that meant something else on that thread.