The return of Virtuals

[+fizzymagic]

I think you missed my point. Whether you want to regard any waymark as a virtual or not; in past debates the final overriding factor that puts geocachers off the whole Waymarking scene is down to not getting their finds updated on their geocaching profile.

 

As I have pointed out ad nauseum, that statement is not true for me. And I don't think it is true for the majority of geocachers. It is true that in many threads that statement has been asserted, but it has never been proven or really supported by more than pretty questionable anecdotal evidence.

[cezanne]

That has been suggested before, and I think the simplest way un-grandfather virtual caches would be to expand EarthCaches to include other types of knowledge besides earth science (e.g., history, art, literature). We'll see soon enough what Groundspeak decided to do.

 

I neither think that this is the simplest way (the main reason being that external support is needed - so the review work is not avoided just moved over to abnother party) nor do I think that Groundspeak will decide to go that way. Personally, I would like to have a project of that type however without the absurd EC requirement to use another language than English on an English speaking site.

 

Cezanne

Edited July 26, 2011 by cezanne

[+releasethedogs]

I think you missed my point. Whether you want to regard any waymark as a virtual or not; in past debates the final overriding factor that puts geocachers off the whole Waymarking scene is down to not getting their finds updated on their geocaching profile.

 

As I have pointed out ad nauseum, that statement is not true for me. And I don't think it is true for the majority of geocachers. It is true that in many threads that statement has been asserted, but it has never been proven or really supported by more than pretty questionable anecdotal evidence.

Ok then, you prove that it's not. Why do you rest the burden of proof on this cacher? If it is so reasonably true for the majority of cachers then it should be no problem for you to prove this is fact.

Edited July 26, 2011 by releasethedogs

[+Castle Mischief]

Well, I never meant to sound moral about anything!

Simply trying to dispute the idea that you are speaking for the majority of geocachers in your sarcastic post. (OK, you never really said that.)

I should have simply said I disagree with nearly everything in your post, and don't want to be included in your hypothetical group.

 

I am speaking for the non-hypothetical majority of cachers that have for whatever reasons given their opinion. Clearly, unless I specifically called you out by name I was not including you and there's really no reason to imply that I was.

 

Short version: Huh?

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

So, when are they returning?

[+Castle Mischief]

These 'challenges' (bad name choice, since there are already 'challenges')... No one seems to know what they are/will be. It sounds like it may be an attempt to resuscitate Whymarking. AS long as they dont' count as 'cache finds' (as benchmarks don't), and as long as I can ignore them (they sound almost as boring as Whymarks) (Okay, I dont know that, yet...), then I don't give a good gosh darn.

I like what remains of Virtuals. But they are dead. Many have no maintenance. Many can be Googled. They will not be returning. Too bad, but, Oh, well. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the frogs are cooking up.

 

Could it be they will be called 'challenges' because it will be a real 'challenge' to get one approved?

 

John

 

I have to agree somewhat with the dolphin on this. They will be confused with "Challenge Caches" (find a cache in every county in state X etc.).

[+Castle Mischief]

I think you missed my point. Whether you want to regard any waymark as a virtual or not; in past debates the final overriding factor that puts geocachers off the whole Waymarking scene is down to not getting their finds updated on their geocaching profile.

 

As I have pointed out ad nauseum, that statement is not true for me. And I don't think it is true for the majority of geocachers. It is true that in many threads that statement has been asserted, but it has never been proven or really supported by more than pretty questionable anecdotal evidence.

Ok then, you prove that it's not. Why do you rest the burden of proof on this cacher? If it is so reasonably true for the majority of cachers then it should be no problem for you to prove this is fact.

 

Anybody that has ever spent more than 10 minutes reading the multitude of "why I think Waymarks are The Worst Thing Ever" threads could tell you that there are at least three reasons they do not replace Virtuals:

 

1. They are on a separate site (and all that entails- including find count/smilies)

2. They can't be loaded into a PQ

3. Multiple WMs can be listed at the same location

 

If you're only hearing the "they don't give me a " then you're doing so by choice.

[Keystone]

The "WoW" factor is only subjective because they have not defined what "WoW" is. It seems like (as I have said previously) that if Jeremy got all the lackeys and stuck them in the meeting room with a few 2 liter bottles of Jolt and a few boxes of twinkies and composed a list or a criteria of what is "WoW" then the reviewers could simply say "This cache does not meet groundspeaks definition of wow as defined here: "link". You are welcome to revise this cache and make it qualify but as is it is not publishable. this is not up to debate."

 

You know what they do with earth caches...

 

Seriously, spend 2-4 days and make a criteria and bring Virtual caches back the right way.

 

Another way to d it is just get some reviewers who only do virtual caches. (just a thought)

But we did do that. We did come up with a bright-line list of things that did not constitute acceptable virtual cache targets. It began with "this is a nice view" and by 2005 it was a very long list that included historical markers among many other things.

 

You weren't around then. Want to get a flavor of how it worked? Go read the Earthcache forum. "But MY glacial erratic is special...."

[+Packanack]

Well the anticipation level is high and rising, so the level of excitement is rising, so the debates will be ferocious upon release and some will be overjoyed and others will not. Wait and see seems to be the course of the day. Never did meet a virtual I did not like.

 

The problem I always had with Waymarking was the total scattershot approach of the website, thought it was not at all user friendly, that was my turnoff.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Packanack

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The "WoW" factor is only subjective because they have not defined what "WoW" is.

Okay, you are in charge of that. Get 100 experienced geocachers in a room and tell them they can't leave until they reach a commonly agreed upon definition of WOW. Then get a couple hundred thousand geocachers to agree to accept that definition. Rotsa ruck, GI.

Edited July 26, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler

[cezanne]

We did come up with a bright-line list of things that did not constitute acceptable virtual cache targets. It began with "this is a nice view" and by 2005 it was a very long list that included historical markers among many other things.

 

You weren't around then. Want to get a flavor of how it worked? Go read the Earthcache forum. "But MY glacial erratic is special...."

 

I was around back then. While I admit that I appreciate that high expectations are put on virtual caches, I think that it is hard to understand that there are no "quality" restrictions whatsoever as soon as a container is placed. I prefer a virtual at a nice view (even if it is not breathtaking) to a film can at some garbage dump and I think that many cachers will share my preference.

 

By placing a distance requirement on virtual caches, nothing worse could happen than what we already have with physical caches.

It gets difficult only from the point onwards where one would like to have something better for virtuals than for physical caches, and this is certainly very hard to achieve with a community which has grown too fast and too much.

 

Cezanne

[+Castle Mischief]

So, when are they returning?

 

In time for the Groundspeak block party. August something or another.

[+Q10]

1. They are on a separate site (and all that entails- including find count/smilies)

2. They can't be loaded into a PQ

3. Multiple WMs can be listed at the same location

 

Three good points against Waymarking - and the reason why I (almost) have given up Waymarking. The return of virtuals has to avoid these three points.

[+hzoi]

You weren't around then. Want to get a flavor of how it worked? Go read the Earthcache forum. "But MY glacial erratic is special...."

 

Don't forget about the waterfalls and the springs/artesian wells. Each of those is also a delicate snowflake, entirely unique unto itself. So it's OK to pump out earthcaches that ask the same stock questions for every one. [/sarcasm] OK, not so much. They've got higher standards than they used to, and they are enforcing them.

 

Which leads me back to my argument: just like it took me a while working with a reviewer to get my first couple earthcaches published, so should it be with virtuals to enforce the standards. Either the submitter will get the message and improve the product so it gets published, or they will cut their losses and move on.

 

Nowadays, I know what the earthcache reviewers are looking for and put extra work into prepping my earthcaches, and the last few I had zero dialogue with the reviewer because I'd done all the prep work up front. It can work the same as

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Which leads me back to my argument: just like it took me a while working with a reviewer to get my first couple earthcaches published, so should it be with virtuals to enforce the standards.

I keep asking and no one ventures an answer... why should virts be evaluated any differently than physical caches?

 

What standard should a virt adhere to that a micro LPC doesn't have to?

[+cx1]

 

What standard should a virt adhere to that a micro LPC doesn't have to?

Virtual caches should only be used in places that would not support a physical container to me should be the only distinction in standards between the two.

 

I also agree with some posts further back that the 'challenge cache' name is already in use so these new 'plout' caches need a different name.

[Dinoprophet]

Which leads me back to my argument: just like it took me a while working with a reviewer to get my first couple earthcaches published, so should it be with virtuals to enforce the standards.

I keep asking and no one ventures an answer... why should virts be evaluated any differently than physical caches?

 

What standard should a virt adhere to that a micro LPC doesn't have to?

I and a few others have ventured an answer. But let me put it this way: if virts had the exact same guidelines as physicals, why would anyone hide a physical? In fact, wouldn't it make the whole thing simpler if we just did away with containers?

[cezanne]

Virtual caches should only be used in places that would not support a physical container to me should be the only distinction in standards between the two.

 

Why? If virtuals do not contribute to the find and hide count for physical caches, I do not see a real reason for coming up with this requirement which is quite subjective.

 

Personally, I think it is off limits to hide a micro in the walls of a chapel, church or other religious object. Still such caches are common practice now.

One of very few virtual caches in Austria (overall 4, among them one TB graveyard and one archived sofa cache) is located at a church

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=b4ea6ada-9b31-4fe5-aa6c-ac07daacba59

 

I very much wish back the times when such virtual caches were possible and respect was still a value for the majority of cachers. Nowadays no cacher will ever succeed in convincing the reviewers that in my country a church does wall not support a physical container as there are so many bad respectless examples.

 

I do understand that the situation in US national parks that do not allow physical containers is a totally different issue.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

But let me put it this way: if virts had the exact same guidelines as physicals, why would anyone hide a physical? In fact, wouldn't it make the whole thing simpler if we just did away with containers?

 

There are many cachers who enjoy to find containers and many who enjoy to hide them (including the creative process of finding a hideout, constructing creative containers and thinking up ingenious camouflages).

 

I would agree that many of the lame caches which just serve as another find point/hide point would have some tendency to be replaced by virtual ones, but if the virtuals do not contribute to the find/hide count I do not think that this will happen.

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

Which leads me back to my argument: just like it took me a while working with a reviewer to get my first couple earthcaches published, so should it be with virtuals to enforce the standards.

I keep asking and no one ventures an answer... why should virts be evaluated any differently than physical caches?

 

What standard should a virt adhere to that a micro LPC doesn't have to?

So if we started to get tons of "I couldn't get permission to hide a cache in thia parking lot so I'm making it a virtual", you would have no problem?

 

My point is that those who like virtual caches did because they found them to bring them to interesting locations most of the time. If virtuals could be placed anywhere, like a physical cache, people would soon tire of doing them. If they don't count as a find as well, they would get visited about as often as waymarks.

 

It may be that instead of volunteer deciding what is "wow", a peer review system would work as well. However, some filter is needed for there to be a significant demand for virtual caches.

[+sbell111]

I'm not convinced that a 'wow' standard is needed anymore. Between better PQs and the 'favorites' feature, I believe that it's no longer necessary for a reviewer to try to decide what you and I will enjoy finding.

[+cx1]

Virtual caches should only be used in places that would not support a physical container to me should be the only distinction in standards between the two.

 

Why? If virtuals do not contribute to the find and hide count for physical caches, I do not see a real reason for coming up with this requirement which is quite subjective.

 

Personally, I think it is off limits to hide a micro in the walls of a chapel, church or other religious object. Still such caches are common practice now.

One of very few virtual caches in Austria (overall 4, among them one TB graveyard and one archived sofa cache) is located at a church

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=b4ea6ada-9b31-4fe5-aa6c-ac07daacba59

 

I very much wish back the times when such virtual caches were possible and respect was still a value for the majority of cachers. Nowadays no cacher will ever succeed in convincing the reviewers that in my country a church does wall not support a physical container as there are so many bad respectless examples.

 

I do understand that the situation in US national parks that do not allow physical containers is a totally different issue.

 

Cezanne

Ah but currently virtual caches do add to a find count. And among the last guidelines for placing them was the suggestion that the area not be able to support a physical container.

Also Groundspeak does not employ a 'past practice' review system. Just because yesterday someone managed to get a listing approved (a micro in the wall of a church) it does not mean that same listing would be approved tomorrow. Along those same lines just because 'church A' gave permission for a cache container to be placed in their wall it does not mean that 'church B' will give the same permission. Having the option of a container-less 'cache' for situations like 'church B' is really the point of a virtual cache to me. I doubt it would be a great burden of proof needed to show the reviewer that in a specific instance it would not be possible to place a container.

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm not convinced that a 'wow' standard is needed anymore. Between better PQs and the 'favorites' feature, I believe that it's no longer necessary for a reviewer to try to decide what you and I will enjoy finding.

 

I'd agree but, so far the Favorites feature has yet to be brought into play with PQs so there's not an efficient way to filter by Fav points and there's also not a attribute for tennis shoe in the woods or dead dear carcasses that I'm aware of. (An extreme example, I admit.)

[+Castle Mischief]

I may be reading too much into this, but is sounds like from Jeremy's post that by allowing for peer review and by not including these New Virts/Challenges in total finds that this going to be a "prove it to me test" for all the reasons that (some) folks have requested that virts and ALR caches return to the playing field.

 

One of the arguments for ALR caches was that people would do the "wear the funny hat" requirement without the cache because "wearing the funny hat" was part of the fun of the "unique" caching experience for a particular cache.

 

-Okay so these don't add to your total find count. Prove to me that there are people dying to "wear a funny hat".

 

One of the arguments regarding virts is that the "wow" factor was unfair and that if allowed to people will create cool virts in places that people will log and visit for the experience of seeing the "cool thing".

 

-Okay, so there's no "wow" factor, they are peer reviewed and they don’t add to your total count. Prove to me that people will still find and log these. Prove to me that "dead dear" and "tennis shoe in the woods" caches won't be allowed.

 

People opposed to Waymarks have often said that if that website was more like gc.com and if there were PQs then they would log and find Waymarks.

 

-Well, there you go. Prove it to me.

 

I don't think this is a test of a new cache type or a new Groundspeak concept. I think this is a test of us, the common cachers.

 

I'm starting to think this is really a good idea too.

[cezanne]

Virtual caches should only be used in places that would not support a physical container to me should be the only distinction in standards between the two.

 

Why? If virtuals do not contribute to the find and hide count for physical caches, I do not see a real reason for coming up with this requirement which is quite subjective.

 

Personally, I think it is off limits to hide a micro in the walls of a chapel, church or other religious object. Still such caches are common practice now.

One of very few virtual caches in Austria (overall 4, among them one TB graveyard and one archived sofa cache) is located at a church

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=b4ea6ada-9b31-4fe5-aa6c-ac07daacba59

 

I very much wish back the times when such virtual caches were possible and respect was still a value for the majority of cachers. Nowadays no cacher will ever succeed in convincing the reviewers that in my country a church does wall not support a physical container as there are so many bad respectless examples.

 

I do understand that the situation in US national parks that do not allow physical containers is a totally different issue.

 

Cezanne

Ah but currently virtual caches do add to a find count.

 

The old ones, yes. But the new ones apparently are not supposed to count.

 

And among the last guidelines for placing them was the suggestion that the area not be able to support a physical container.

 

I am aware of that (actually one of the two still existing virtual caches in Austria is one of my caches), but it depended on whether one was able to convince the reviewer.

 

Also Groundspeak does not employ a 'past practice' review system. Just because yesterday someone managed to get a listing approved (a micro in the wall of a church) it does not mean that same listing would be approved tomorrow.

 

I agree. The fact is just that the majority of the geocachers here including the reviewers have no problems with such caches.

Some have at least concerns if there is the danger that historical substance is damaged. Very few cachers have concerns due to respect, religious beliefs etc

 

They have no issues with putting film canisters somewhere behind statues of saints such that the seekers behave in a respectless manner. I have even encountered nanos places like a screw on a crucifix. For many cachers there is no difference between a crucifix and a bench in a park or a lamp post. The majority of cachers in my country also has no issue with a cache container which is a LED candle placed in a lantern on a gravestone of an active graveyard. So even in case of a graveyard I would be hard to argue that a container cannot be placed as even if it is an urban graveyard with no trees, strange placements like the one mentioned above or putting a film canister in some corner or attaching a nano to a garbage bin will almost always be possible.

 

I do not know when the first nano showed up, but in any case at the time when virtual still existed, they have not been known in Austria. Back then it was a bit easier to argue that no container can be placed. There are hardly any placed where no nano can be placed.

 

I doubt it would be a great burden of proof needed to show the reviewer that in a specific instance it would not be possible to place a container.

 

I think that except in areas which are off-limit for physical geocaches due to legal reasons, there is hardly a location where it is not possible to place a container. For example, those nanos are so small that they basically can be put everywhere. The question is just whether one wants to place such a container and whether one wants to place one regardless of the circumstances.

 

Cezanne

[+geodarts]

-Well, there you go. Prove it to me.

 

I don't think this is a test of a new cache type or a new Groundspeak concept. I think this is a test of us, the common cachers.

I'm starting to think this is really a good idea too.

 

I do not see it as a test for me at all. I geocache. I am the top ranked player in ispy (an iphone/gps game). I do an occasional letterbox. I do things that have nothing to do with location-based games. Whether I want to take up another activity, that is not directly part of this game, is another question. I did not ask for yet another side game, like benchmarks or waymarks or the Mighty Egg Hunt, so it will have to grab my interest enough to make me want to take up yet another gps activity.

 

I love the way that the existing virtuals extended and enriched this game for me. But they are part of this game. Earthcaches rank among my favorites, but I did not do the ones that were on Waymarking, when they were moved off this site. I love whereigos, but don't do cartridges that are not associated with a cache. So if I do not take up a challenge it will have nothing to do with whether I believe that virtual caching should be part of the existing game that I play -- or whether virtuals actually could have returned to this game with limitations apart from the wow factor.

 

The find count does not define whether an activity will be fun, there are many fun things that have nothing to do with a smiley. But it does define whether it is part of the game. Jeremy has indicated that at some point, the challenges might be added to the count. In other words, at some point, they might be integrated into this game. If that happens, I can make other decisions. But at this point, I have nothing to prove.

Edited July 26, 2011 by justacacher

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Which leads me back to my argument: just like it took me a while working with a reviewer to get my first couple earthcaches published, so should it be with virtuals to enforce the standards.

I keep asking and no one ventures an answer... why should virts be evaluated any differently than physical caches?

 

What standard should a virt adhere to that a micro LPC doesn't have to?

I and a few others have ventured an answer. But let me put it this way: if virts had the exact same guidelines as physicals, why would anyone hide a physical? In fact, wouldn't it make the whole thing simpler if we just did away with containers?

As you are well aware virts are meant to go where physical caches cannot. As I am pretty sure you are aware my question has to do with location and 'wow' factor evaluation... we don't judge those things for physical caches so why for virts?

 

And "exact same guidelines" are your words, I never said that. I just said that the virt should be evaluated for worthiness like any physical cache... in other words, not.

Edited July 26, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler

[Dinoprophet]

Which leads me back to my argument: just like it took me a while working with a reviewer to get my first couple earthcaches published, so should it be with virtuals to enforce the standards.

I keep asking and no one ventures an answer... why should virts be evaluated any differently than physical caches?

 

What standard should a virt adhere to that a micro LPC doesn't have to?

I and a few others have ventured an answer. But let me put it this way: if virts had the exact same guidelines as physicals, why would anyone hide a physical? In fact, wouldn't it make the whole thing simpler if we just did away with containers?

As you are well aware virts are meant to go where physical caches cannot. As I am pretty sure you are aware my question has to do with location and 'wow' factor evaluation... we don't judge those things for physical caches so why for virts?

 

And "exact same guidelines" are your words, I never said that. I just said that the virt should be evaluated for worthiness like any physical cache... in other words, not.

 

This is geocaching, therefore the presence of a physical cache makes a spot worthy. That's the evaluation. If there's not a physical cache, then something else has to make it worthy.

 

Without the 'wow' criteria, you could theoretically do a power trail of virts every 528 feet on the shoulder of every public road in the world.

 

BTW, I'm afraid my tone may be reading more terse than I intended. I'm not trying to be confrontational, just disagreeing.

[+DragonsWest]

I have a series in mind, which may be no more than 7 locations. They're certainly going to be a strong draw for a select crowd - to others they'll be yet-another-find, which is about as subjective as they go. I still think they are highly worth doing.

[+sixsix210]

As a newb who recently got his first virtual cahce, I have to say that the experience was positive, and without the virtual cache, I would have missed a touching and compelling element of a monument I barely gave a glance to when I first saw it. As a newb, I had no idea that the virtuals were defunct and grandfathered, and when I got my first, my brain was abuzz with ideas for cool series of virtuals in my home town. I hope that someday they come back cool.

[cezanne]

 

Without the 'wow' criteria, you could theoretically do a power trail of virts every 528 feet on the shoulder of every public road in the world.

 

True, but I think the temptation to do that will be rather low if the virtuals do not count for the find/hide count of physical caches.

 

Cezanne

[+Castle Mischief]

I just said that the virt should be evaluated for worthiness like any physical cache... in other words, not.

 

There's a really simple answer for this, but it's not the one you're looking for: because they're virts. Because the game started out looking for a container and then the game was expanded upon and somebody decided that on this website that because virts lacked one critical component that they should require another critical component.

 

It's because they aren't the same.

 

If at some point we gain the ability to hide "Sqeedily Spoch" Caches and they require that owners create a portion of extra-dimensional space within the container and somebody comes along and asks "why do we have to create a 5th dimension inside Sqeedily Spoch caches when we don't for traditional caches??" the answer will be because that's how they've been defined.

[+Castle Mischief]

-Well, there you go. Prove it to me.

 

I don't think this is a test of a new cache type or a new Groundspeak concept. I think this is a test of us, the common cachers.

I'm starting to think this is really a good idea too.

 

I do not see it as a test for me at all...

 

...But at this point, I have nothing to prove.

 

Okay, not all cachers. Some cachers.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

Without the 'wow' criteria, you could theoretically do a power trail of virts every 528 feet on the shoulder of every public road in the world.

 

True, but I think the temptation to do that will be rather low if the virtuals do not count for the find/hide count of physical caches.

 

Cezanne

 

But... they will at least be on the same page as total count, they might be included in the future total count, and they can be pulled in a PQ. It's a compromise.

[Dinoprophet]

 

Without the 'wow' criteria, you could theoretically do a power trail of virts every 528 feet on the shoulder of every public road in the world.

 

True, but I think the temptation to do that will be rather low if the virtuals do not count for the find/hide count of physical caches.

 

Cezanne

Agreed. I'm not sure at this point whether we're still discussing the old stuff, the revealed new stuff, or the hypothetical new stuff. In any case, I believe *some* criteria beyond "here are coordinates, doesn't matter what's there" are necessary.

[cezanne]

I'm not sure at this point whether we're still discussing the old stuff, the revealed new stuff, or the hypothetical new stuff. In any case, I believe *some* criteria beyond "here are coordinates, doesn't matter what's there" are necessary.

 

I can only speak for myself. I did not have the old stuff in mind, just the new one. As not much has been revealed, certainly hypothetical and revealed aspects intermingle.

I agree that criteria are needed if one wants to end up with a better result than what happens for caches with physical containers and to come even close to what virtuals have been in their best times. If one is satisfied with the same type of outcome than for physical caches (I am not),

I think that a saturation guideline and not counting hides/finds of virtuals together with hides/finds of physical containers should be sufficient.

 

Cezanne

[+cache_test_dummies]

But... they will at least be on the same page as total count, they might be included in the future total count, and they can be pulled in a PQ. It's a compromise.

I can't find a reference for this (bolded statement). Is this speculation, or did I miss this in a previous post?

[+cx1]

 

I think that except in areas which are off-limit for physical geocaches due to legal reasons, there is hardly a location where it is not possible to place a container. For example, those nanos are so small that they basically can be put everywhere. The question is just whether one wants to place such a container and whether one wants to place one regardless of the circumstances.

 

Cezanne

There is still the needed element of permission. It may be perfectly legal for me to visit 'church A'. There might be plenty of little spots inside 'church A' to hide a nano container (even on the back of a cross). However if permission is not granted by the priest, deacon or whomever else might be in-charge of 'church A' then a physical container can not be placed there. It sounds to me that there are some cache owners in your area not seeking out proper permission to place their nano containers and cache seekers that do not care.

[cezanne]

It sounds to me that there are some cache owners in your area not seeking out proper permission to place their nano containers and cache seekers that do not care.

 

Actually, there is no explicit permission for at least 98% of the caches in my country (including my own) and there exists no system of asking for permission (like it exists for example in the national parks in the US).

 

What I tried to argue about was however something different. As I am concerned, I would not want to place a cache container at a religious place even if it were possible to get permission.

There has been a cache inside a German church hidden by a priest (a fanatic geocacher at that time) and nevertheless I did not like that and decided to ignore the cache.

 

I would like to decide on my own whether an area is appropriate for a cache. It would hate to need some proof of rejection by the property owner. I would not want to

have to ask a priest for an official statement that no cache container can be placed in an area where it seems respectless to me to place a cache.

 

Cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

It sounds to me that there are some cache owners in your area not seeking out proper permission to place their nano containers and cache seekers that do not care.

Actually, there is no explicit permission for at least 98% of the caches in my country (including my own) and there exists no system of asking for permission (like it exists for example in the national parks in the US).

Around here, there also are lots of locations where permission is implicitly assumed. To place a cache in a religious building, however, likely would require explicit permission.

 

As I am concerned, I would not want to place a cache container at a religious place even if it were possible to get permission.

Fortunately, you don't have to place a cache in a religious place or anywhere else that makes you uncomfortable.

 

I would like to decide on my own whether an area is appropriate for a cache. It would hate to need some proof of rejection by the property owner. I would not want to

have to ask a priest for an official statement that no cache container can be placed in an area where it seems respectless to me to place a cache.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You can decide on your own whether you want to cache at a particular place. If you feel searching for a cache in a religious building is disrespectful, then you can ignore those types of caches.

 

If you're saying you want to decide which places are appropriate for others to cache, then you'll probably have much less luck in that quest. However, if you feel a cache is placed on private property without explicit permission, you can send a note to your local reviewer and explain the situation. To do this, you don't need to get an official statement from the owner/manager saying that no caching is allowed. Instead, it is up to the cache owner to get a statement saying that caching is allowed.

[cezanne]

It sounds to me that there are some cache owners in your area not seeking out proper permission to place their nano containers and cache seekers that do not care.

Actually, there is no explicit permission for at least 98% of the caches in my country (including my own) and there exists no system of asking for permission (like it exists for example in the national parks in the US).

Around here, there also are lots of locations where permission is implicitly assumed. To place a cache in a religious building, however, likely would require explicit permission.

 

Here as well if the cache is inside a church, at least if this is spelt out.

 

As I am concerned, I would not want to place a cache container at a religious place even if it were possible to get permission.

Fortunately, you don't have to place a cache in a religious place or anywhere else that makes you uncomfortable.

 

Of course not, but there are situations where I would like to show an area and teach something about its history by means of a virtual cache.

You left out part of my argument. I just used the example to explain why I do not like the requirement for a virtual cache that no cache container can be placed.

 

I would like to decide on my own whether an area is appropriate for a cache. It would hate to need some proof of rejection by the property owner. I would not want to

have to ask a priest for an official statement that no cache container can be placed in an area where it seems respectless to me to place a cache.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. You can decide on your own whether you want to cache at a particular place. If you feel searching for a cache in a religious building is disrespectful, then you can ignore those types of caches.

 

As a searcher, yes. As someone with the intent to come up with a virtual cache (as explained above), I would not want however to ask someone for permission to place a container to be able to set up a virtual cache without a container as the virtual concept is the concept I want to go for right from the beginning.

 

If you're saying you want to decide which places are appropriate for others to cache, then you'll probably have much less luck in that quest.

 

No, I definitely do not want to decide that. I just want to decide where I prefer a virtual cache set up by myself to hiding a container.

I do not want to rely on having proof that no cache containers are allowed/possible at the location to which I would like to dedicate a virtual cache.

I am willing however to provide arguments during the review process why I think that a container is not appropriate at the location I have in mind.

 

BTW: Hardly any Earthcache in continental would exist if one would need the proof that no container can be placed there.

 

Did it become more clear now what I meant? In any case, I do not want to restrict anyone else.

 

Edit: I just had a look at the virtuals you visited and came across the one one who visited as last one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=301ec098-9de2-40c4-a9d5-f94851995910

 

That's definitely an example where according to the standards of nowadays the claim that no container can be placed is not true (there are caches close-by), but still I like the concept of virtual caches of that type and am missing them very much. (Except one in Carinthia at a church and my own there are no virtual caches to find all over Austria.)

 

Cezanne

Edited July 27, 2011 by cezanne

[+Castle Mischief]

But... they will at least be on the same page as total count, they might be included in the future total count, and they can be pulled in a PQ. It's a compromise.

I can't find a reference for this (bolded statement). Is this speculation, or did I miss this in a previous post?

 

Okay, good catch. There's not specific a mention of that from Jeremy, but he did say this:

 

• It will be on Geocaching.com, not a new web site. It will be a separate section in the beta, but I expect it to be integrated into a joined search at some point.
  
• Currently they will not go towards your find count, but it might at some point. It won't at the beginning though.
  
• It will be a visible statistic, so you will see them on the profile, on the logs, etc.
   
  

 

I guess I took that to mean that it would be listed on the Profile page like Benchmarks, but looking back he doesn't specifically say that. But it will at least be on your gc.com profile and not some other site.

[+St.Matthew]

So any clue as to what these challenges will be like? Will they be more like:

 

1) Find a geocache published before 1/1/2001.

or

2) Ride a rollercoaster.

 

???

Edited July 27, 2011 by St.Matthew

[+dfx]

So any clue as to what these challenges will be like? Will they be more like:

 

1) Find a geocache published before 1/1/2001.

or

2) Ride a rollercoaster.

 

???

 

As I understood it, they will be location-based "challenges", just like virtuals were. Go somewhere specific and do something specific. For example, go to that monument at the coordinates and post a picture of yourself with it.

[+tozainamboku]

So any clue as to what these challenges will be like? Will they be more like:

 

1) Find a geocache published before 1/1/2001.

or

2) Ride a rollercoaster.

 

???

 

As I understood it, they will be location-based "challenges", just like virtuals were. Go somewhere specific and do something specific. For example, go to that monument at the coordinates and post a picture of yourself with it.

Standing on your head

[+dfx]

So any clue as to what these challenges will be like? Will they be more like:

 

1) Find a geocache published before 1/1/2001.

or

2) Ride a rollercoaster.

 

???

 

As I understood it, they will be location-based "challenges", just like virtuals were. Go somewhere specific and do something specific. For example, go to that monument at the coordinates and post a picture of yourself with it.

Standing on your head

Wearing a silly hat

[+humboldt flier]

I thought photos and silly additional requirements were thrown out with the revamp during the Earth Cache turmoil a number of months back??

 

I have worked around the virtual issues by developing puzzle caches for some sites.

[+briansnat]

The "WoW" factor is only subjective because they have not defined what "WoW" is. It seems like (as I have said previously) that if Jeremy got all the lackeys and stuck them in the meeting room with a few 2 liter bottles of Jolt and a few boxes of twinkies and composed a list or a criteria of what is "WoW" then the reviewers could simply say "This cache does not meet groundspeaks definition of wow as defined here: "link". You are welcome to revise this cache and make it qualify but as is it is not publishable. this is not up to debate."

 

You know what they do with earth caches...

 

Seriously, spend 2-4 days and make a criteria and bring Virtual caches back the right way.

 

Another way to d it is just get some reviewers who only do virtual caches. (just a thought)

But we did do that. We did come up with a bright-line list of things that did not constitute acceptable virtual cache targets. It began with "this is a nice view" and by 2005 it was a very long list that included historical markers among many other things.

 

You weren't around then. Want to get a flavor of how it worked? Go read the Earthcache forum. "But MY glacial erratic is special...."

 

There was also the "coffee table book" clause. A wow virtual would be something you might find a photo of in one of those giant photo books that people keep on their coffee tables.

[+dfx]

I thought photos and silly additional requirements were thrown out with the revamp during the Earth Cache turmoil a number of months back??

 

There's two unrelated issues here: All physical caches have been freed from any ALRs a while ago. Obviously earthcaches aren't physical caches, so they have their own rules and don't constitute ALRs. The picture requirement was loosed from them, but not completely removed. The new "challenges" are neither physical caches nor earthcaches, so again can have their own set of rules.

[+sbell111]

I'm not convinced that a 'wow' standard is needed anymore. Between better PQs and the 'favorites' feature, I believe that it's no longer necessary for a reviewer to try to decide what you and I will enjoy finding.

 

I'd agree but, so far the Favorites feature has yet to be brought into play with PQs so there's not an efficient way to filter by Fav points and there's also not a attribute for tennis shoe in the woods or dead dear carcasses that I'm aware of. (An extreme example, I admit.)

You need not link the faves and PQs to use these two great tools to give you a more satisfying geocaching experience. Also, you need not define every single thing in the world that you do not enjoy to come up with things that you do enjoy.