Using a Benchmark as a virtual cache identifier.

[BootsWalker]

Last night I registered a new virtual cache and got the following reply:

"Message:

I'm sorry but since an entire sister web site has been devoted to US benchmarks we won't post a virtual cache consisting of finding one on www.geocaching.com.

erik - geocaching.com admin"

 

I strongly disagree with this new policy as this is my preferred method of placing a cache and the new policy bumps me out of the game.

 

The cache in question references a benchmark that is not in the geocaching.com database.

 

Since all national parks and refuge areas, and many state and city parks, forbid the placement of regular caches, many Geocachers, including myself, have used benchmarks as a virtual cache identifier.

 

Since geocaching.com has added a benchmark section to their web site they have decided to not allow this type of virtual cache, even if the benchmark is not in their database.

 

I have protested this new policy but Jerome says, 'put it to a vote... to override the "geocaching gods"'

 

So the question to you, my fellow Geocachers, is:

[+MaxEntropy]

I voted yes, but I wanted to add a qualifier.

There's lots of geocachers but only a few benchmark hunters so by creating a virtual of a benchmark, it could help expand the game for a lot of people.

However, let me add that the benchmark should be of exceptional interest either historical or geographical. Since doing a little benchmark hunting, I've read posts about the Mason-Dixon Line and some benchmarks that Ben Franklin placed. These sound like some places that would be interesting to find especially if the cache description includes some history of the mark or the folks who placed the mark. See the caches by Boren about defunct high-tech companies for an example of these. Most are just business park buildings, but to know that Atari or NeXT once occupied the building makes the virtual more interesting (he usually places a real cache nearby)

I'm NOT interested in looking for benchmark caches that someone just picked off of the list for grins or to run some count up. One of my favorite parts of Geocaching is going to interesting places, I'd appreciate it if that continues.

Thanks for the idea.

Mickey

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Before I vote.....

 

I wish I knew what geocaching's actual objection is to using benchmarks as virtuals. I read and re-read several times the "sister site" (geocaching's benchmark section) sentence but couldn't figure out how that amounts to a reason for an objection.

 

On the other hand, I worry about the use of benchmarks as virtual caches in National Parks because the Park Service doesn't want geocaches. Presumably most of the benchmarks in Parks are not on trails and if a geocacher trail develops to the benchmark, the benchmark cannot then be moved. I guess the virtual could be retired at that point and another benchmark used, but that scenario really gets back to Parks' original dislike of geocaching, assuming it is the traffic they object to. Are/were benchmark virtual caches in parks benign?

[rusty0101]

From what I understand, the objection that National Parks management people have with geocaching is not people visiting various locations in the parks, it is the idea of leaving things in the parks.

 

The whole idea being to leave only footprints, and take only pictures.

 

A virtual cache should be approvable if the people running the National Parks haven't already rejected the idea of any sort of geocache on a national park.

 

That said, a benchmark not currently in the NGS system has two advantages going for it. One being that geocache visitors did not put it there. The other being that it raises the awareness of the fact that there are other oranizations who do benchmark and who have not reported all of their benchmarks to the NGS.

 

One thing I would recomend is that before someone posted a virtual cache that they fully document the benchmark and approach the local park management people to get approval first. Part of this is to re-assure the park people that getting to and from the cache does not present any safety concerns, and to get assurance from the park people that the random geocacher is not going to be causing park management problems.

 

-Rusty

[BootsWalker]

I agree with all the comments posted so far. The caches we [team BootsWalker] place are well thought out and in locations worthy of a virtual or regular cache. They would all be valid cache locations in their own right, if regular caches were permitted in national parks and refuge areas.

 

The benchmark in question here is of exceptional interest historically and geographical.

 

All of our virtual caches in Parks are on maintained trails ( 1 or 2 on animal trails) so getting to and from the caches does not present any safety concerns that other hikers in the area are not exposed to regularly.

 

Leading someone to these special places with geocaches, virtual or real, is no different than leading people there throught the descriptions and directions in a guide book.

[survey tech]

Most markers, particularly triangulation stations, which are usually on or near peaks, already have a discernable trail leading to them, so I would not expect additional damage to the environment, resulting from increased foot traffic to such sites, to be an issue, even in our parks. The idea of placing man-made non-biodegradeable objects in the parks without permission may be a cause for some concern among park officials however.

[+Web-ling]

There are already virtual caches using benchmarks, including my North Texas Benchmark of the Month Club. Erik88l-r was the approver. Initially, he denied approval, but with a lengthy email explaining the concept and detailing the reasons why I thought it should be approved, he reluctantly approved it.

 

Generally speaking, benchmarks don't need to be made into virtual caches. However, if the location is novel, such as would already make a good virtual cache, and the benchmark is primarily being used as the verification, I see no reason why it should not be approved. That's how I presented mine to Erik - the locations for my cache are either historic buildings, scenic views, or otherwise somehow novel. Each spot would make a good virtual cache, even without the benchmark. The benchmark is just a "bonus". If you explain it this way, I don't see why the cache should be denied.

 

If, however, it's just another disk on the side of the path, what's the point? Where exactly is this disk? Would it be a good location for a virtual if the disk WASN'T there? If there is nothing special about the location other than that there's a disk there, then I agree that it shouldn't be approved.

 

[+rdw]

It sounds like Web-ling has the idea. What is there besides the marker? Just because national parks don't allow traditional caches doesn't mean we have to "place" benchmark caches just to have something there. If there is nothing at the coordinates special enough for a virtual cache, the benchmark is not going to make it any better. There is an entire portion of the website dedicated to finding benchmarks and there is a longstanding locationless cache along the same lines. I can understand the approvers denying yet another virtual based on a benchmark.

 

If there is something truly unique at the coordinates, make your case to the approvers.

 

rdw

[tatoeba]

I totally agree with Web-Ling. Specially if the benchmark is already in the database. Otherwise it should be approved

 

Legendeo is still in Beta!

[+GoldKey]

I voted

 

"Yes. But only benchmarks not listed on geocaching.com can be used as the identifier of a virtual cache."

 

As long as there is something unique about the location besides the location of the benchmark.

 

"We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile. We are the Borg."

[+embra]

I think Web-ling articulated the case well. The BM can be useful for verifying the virtual, but in most instances the virtual should be something else near the BM.

[BootsWalker]

After spending a little more time checking out Erik and Jeremy's forum postings and the new guidelines page I have a better idea of what they want. Many of the same things mentioned by Web-ling and several others who have posted on this thread.

 

So I have reworked the virtual cache description in question to emphasize those things (historical interest, coffee table book worthiness, etc).

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=42823&Nocache=0.7055475

 

As with this cache I have given a lot of thought to the worthiness of all my caches, in particular my virtual caches. I have tried to resist the urge to place a cache at every mountain top or spectacular view point and honestly think I have been successful. But I was reviewing a year old print out of the guidelines while making these judgments, so with this newfound set of guidelines [ http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp ] I will review them all (virtual and regular) and rework the descriptions for the ones with merit or archive the ones that I can't honestly justify under the new guidelines.

 

And I'd like to thank everyone who posted for you thoughtful comments that prompted be to go seeking more information and the new guidlines. And thanks to everyone who resisted the urge to call me an idiot

[+Web-ling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BootsWalker:

 

And I'd like to thank everyone who posted for you thoughtful comments that prompted be to go seeking more information and the new guidlines. And thanks to everyone who resisted the urge to call me an idiot

---

Thanks for having such a positive attitude! So many people post a question, then get hacked off because they don't like the answers they get. It's refreshing to have someone take the suggestions in stride, and make positive changes to their caches based on the input. Good luck getting your cache approved!

 

[BootsWalker]

Jeremy approved and unachieved this cache last night.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=42823&Nocache=0.7055475

 

He didn't say why but I assume it was because:

A. I modified the description to emphasize historical interest, uniqueness, coffee table book worthiness, etc.

B. The overwhelming majority of voters in this poll agreed that a benchmark can be used as long as it meets the other geocache guidelines.

(Jeremy, correct me if I'm wrong)

 

Thanks again to everyone for the thoughtful comments and suggestions that helped me to realize and understand the error of my [cache description] ways.