+texasgrillchef Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) As most of us know. Geocaching.com is in the process of returning the Virtual Cache back to us. As I can tell, many of you are happy about this, and many of you are not. Either way they will soon be returning. Here is MY idea for the rules/guidelines around the new Virtual cache. IMHO this would be the best solution to keep the majority of geocachers happy. Both those who support the idea of bringing Virtuals back, and to a few of those who don't want them back. Here is the list... (My Idea) 1. Virtuals would ONLY be allowed where a PHYSICAL cache can NOT be placed for any reason. Exmaples of this, where a physical cache would violate local, state, or Federal law's rules & regulations. Second where a land owner/care taker doesn't want a physical cache placed. 2. A Virtual would be the counterpart to a "EARTHCACHE" in that an earthcache relates back to some physical/natural item to the planet earth. A Virtual would relate back to something that is "Man-Made" that is of some importance either locally, state, country or even to the planet. Examples of this would be something historical. Historical landmarks, markers etc.. It could relate as well to something of other importance. Example being a big NFL Stadium... In Dallas TExas... this would be the NEW Dallas Cowboys Stadium. Either way. The location MUST be of some SIGNIFICANT Importance to the community. Ie... Virtuals couldn't be placed at Wally World, Or similar. 3. Logging a Virtual should follow the same idea that having a puzzle on a Mystery cache would be. Logging a virtual would have to be shown by the CO that it is possible to obtain the information to log this cache from the actual GPS location/coordinates of the Virtual. Without entering a business, etc... Logging of a Virtual should also ALWAYS be allowed by simply taking & posting the pic of the geocacher, the GPS at the posted GPS coordinates with the "Proof" of location in the background. The geocacher should have the choice between posting the photo, OR emailing the answers required. Those are the 3 main things I would like to see. There could be other "Guidelines" as well for Virtuals. But at least these 3. One other thing to note. Is all other guidelines that apply to other geocaches would still apply to Virtuals as well. TGC Edited January 25, 2011 by texasgrillchef Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Sadly, I know for a fact that the mere availability of such a cache type will have some land managers banning physical caches in a heartbeat. I hope the *new* rules/guidelines somehow inhibit this. Link to comment
+Geo_Raptor Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) The location MUST be of some SIGNIFICANT Importance to the community. Ie... Virtuals couldn't be placed at Wally World, Or similar. Overall, these are an interesting set of guidelines, and I happen to agree with you for the most part...however I would be concerned with phrase above, how could a reviewer in some other part of the country (potentially) make this subjective determination? Would reviewers/GS want to get in this kind of debate with COs?...What is important or significant to one person may not be significant to another... Just to play devil advocate, would you allow a virtual of Walmart's first store/corporate head office in Bentonville, Arkansas? Is the birthplace of Walmart and the retailing revolution it caused, a significant event? It seems that the community views the retailer as significant, as do a search of tourist attractions for this area and it is listed as the top attraction. I personally would not view this as a significant location but I bet there would be people who disagree with me. In my humble opinion GS/reviewers should base any guidelines on objective criteria that they can enforce consistently Edited January 25, 2011 by Fonty Family Link to comment
+dfx Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Overall, these are an interesting set of guidelines, and I happen to agree with you for the most part...however I would be concerned with phrase above, how could a reviewer in some other part of the country (potentially) make this subjective determination? Would reviewers/GS want to get in this kind of debate with COs?...What is important or significant to one person may not be significant to another... Yep, Kinda sounds like just some paraphrasing of the old "wow factor", which as we all know didn't quite work. Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 There is already a thread on this topic here Link to comment
+cx1 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 2. A Virtual would be the counterpart to a "EARTHCACHE" in that an earthcache relates back to some physical/natural item to the planet earth. A Virtual would relate back to something that is "Man-Made" that is of some importance either locally, state, country or even to the planet. Examples of this would be something historical. Historical landmarks, markers etc.. It could relate as well to something of other importance. Example being a big NFL Stadium... In Dallas TExas... this would be the NEW Dallas Cowboys Stadium. Either way. The location MUST be of some SIGNIFICANT Importance to the community. Ie... Virtuals couldn't be placed at Wally World, Or similar. I don't quite agree with section 2. Earthcaches have very strict guidelines that do not account for all things natural. I feel that limiting virtual caches to only "man-made" areas would be too limiting to the potential of virtual caches. I also feel that requiring a 'significant' importance is too subjective and places too great a burden on the reviewing staff. 3. Logging a Virtual should follow the same idea that having a puzzle on a Mystery cache would be. Logging a virtual would have to be shown by the CO that it is possible to obtain the information to log this cache from the actual GPS location/coordinates of the Virtual. Without entering a business, etc... Logging of a Virtual should also ALWAYS be allowed by simply taking & posting the pic of the geocacher, the GPS at the posted GPS coordinates with the "Proof" of location in the background. The geocacher should have the choice between posting the photo, OR emailing the answers required. I like this part but with slight modification. I feel a cacher should be allowed to substitute a personal object other then their gps for photographic evidence. I also don't feel that the cacher should be required to be in the picture. I sometimes cache alone for one thing and I know that some people are uncomfortable posting personal images on-line. I also feel it should be allowed for the cache owner to specify a location for the logging photograph to be taken. Some cache owners like their virtual caches to be a surprise to the cache visitors. Allowing the cache owner to specify a particular bench for example would aid in keeping the surprise element of the cache. I suppose that could be what you refer to as "Proof" above but I would rather the specific spot be left up to the cache owner if they desire. Link to comment
Motorcycle_Mama Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Closing in favor of existing thread. To OP, feel free to post in the thread linked by tozainamboku titled "The Return Of Virtuals how would you implement them?" Link to comment
Recommended Posts