Move Virtual and locationless "caches"

[+sbukosky]

What's the difference between benchmark hunting and virtual caches? Not much in my opinion. If benchmark totals are not included in cache totals, and I agree that they shouldn't be, then it follows that virtual caches should not either. I believe they should be totaled with the benchmarks. If it doesn't have a cache, it isn't Geocaching! It's more like Geodashing. The total finds mean a lot to many of us. I believe including virtuals dilutes the meaning of X number of finds. What do you think??

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

[dboggny]

quote:

---

The total finds mean a lot to many of us. I believe including virtuals dilutes the meaning of X number of finds. What do you think??

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

---

 

mr. bukosky:

 

speaking for myself (and maybe others with similar ideals), i dont care about numbers of finds. if you have a lot of finds, and you enjoy yourself, good for you. if you dont have a lot of finds, and you enjoy yourself, good for you. i personally dont care how many finds people have or dont have. ITS A GAME. i care about the enjoyment, recreation and knowledge i am gaining about navigation and technology. if it makes you feel better about yourself to total numbers of finds your way, then feel free to advocate it. some of us just dont care. by the way, some of us who enjoy virtual caches for the knowlegde and enrichment they bring to us will continue to enjoy them as much despite them not being counted as "official" finds.

 

SR and dboggny. my mother in law rides a broom!

[+gnbrotz]

I like keeping track of the numbers. Not for competetive reasons, but as a way for me to track my own history in the sport. I've recently taken the time to break down my "finds" (on my profile page) into categories. I hope the GC site will someday do this; but, until then, I'll try to keep up with it myself.

 

Take a look and tell me what you think.

 

Greg

N 39° 54.705'

W 77° 33.137'

[+jhwf44]

I don't think the numbers are really that important either...it's not like a competition. I do think it would be nice, if they have time, to seperate the locationless caches and virtual ones from the cache list...like different categories (Normal Caches Found, Locationless Caches Found, Event Caches found, etc) but I don't think it's that big of a deal.

 

jhwf4

[BassoonPilot]

Virtual caches are not much different than Tupperware caches ... you still have to get yourself to the posted coordinates and find the cache.(In the case of most virtuals, the cache is a piece of information.) I've done a few virtual caches that were considerably more involved than a lot of the "dump-and-run" cache placements I've seen.

 

I agree that locationless caches are "something completely different," and perhaps they should be counted separately. But I don't consider it an important issue.

[+MartyFouts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Bukosky:

What's the difference between benchmark hunting and virtual caches? Not much in my opinion. If benchmark totals are not included in cache totals, and I agree that they shouldn't be, then it follows that virtual caches should not either. I believe they should be totaled with the benchmarks. If it doesn't have a cache, it isn't Geocaching! It's more like Geodashing. The total finds mean a lot to many of us. I believe including virtuals dilutes the meaning of X number of finds. What do you think??

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

---

 

I think that total finds is a meaningless number. Or, more precisely, comparing your finds to someone else is meaningless. I've found 1/2 traditional caches that take less time and thought to do than my virtual cache does.

 

Two weeks ago I did a /3 that took eight hours. Yesterday I another /3 that only took two.

 

How do you compare a 7 stage multicache to a 2 stage puzzle cache to a 3 stage map-and-compass to any of the above?

[NetDep]

...has been beat to death.

 

Does the walker choose the path, or the path, the walker? - Sabriel, by Garth Nix

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marty Fouts:

 

How do you compare a 7 stage multicache to a 2 stage puzzle cache to a 3 stage map-and-compass to any of the above?

---

 

That's an easy one: Were they fun?

[+sbell111]

Please do a search on this topic as it has been discussed many times. People fall on both sides of the issue.

 

Myself, I certainly do not believe that standard virtuals should be separated out. A standard virtual is no different from an easy micro. In some cases, it is actually somewhat more difficult.

 

I have been a supporter of locationless caches in the past. I think they can be a ton of fun. This is particularly true if there are no other caches in your area to hunt. (Please see the other threads for my complete diatribes on this issue.) That being said, I think it has been a couple of months since I have gone after a locationless. I've had other things going on in my life and plenty of other caches to hunt, so I haven't bothered. This should not be taken as a condemnation of locationless caches as I do believe that they are wirthy and will likely search for some more in the future.

 

Regarding 'find counts'...

 

The find count of other cachers meen nothing to me. Remember that even caches of the same type cannot be easily compared to one another because of distance and difficulty. In the same way, find counts of different cachers cannot be reasonably compared.

 

I am somewhat interested in my own count because I am vain. This is apparent from my comments in other threads regarding a cacher deleting my logs.

 

To summarize, I just don't think this is an important issue. I cache for myself and have a ton of fun doing it.

 

Cache on, Have fun!

[+sbukosky]

Competition is fun. Keeping score matters. Have you never checked the stats sites from time to time to see where you rate? Documenting accomplishments and pride in those accomplishments is a good thing. You don't go anywhere in anything without having accomplishments documented to validate your experience. I'm frequently seeing logs where it is said that they've done, say, eight caches today and they are proud of that acomplishment. Or, a log saying how special this hunt was because they hit number 25 or 100 or whatever. People are interested in that number.

 

Am I saying this is a big thing. No, but it is a good thing.

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

[+CYBret]

quote:

---

I'm frequently seeing logs where it is said that they've done, say, eight caches today and they are proud of that acomplishment. Or, a log saying how special this hunt was because they hit number 25 or 100 or whatever. People are interested in that number.

---

 

I know I can only speak for myself here, but I keep track of those numbers because my main competition is against myself and my otherwise busy schedule. Higher numbers mean that I've managed to give myself a day off and accomplish something that satisfies only me.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I think there are a lot of cachers out there facing the same kind of competition.

 

Bret

 

"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field.

When a man found it, he hid it again."

Mt. 13:44

[+raouljan]

But come on!

Having bagged some Benchmarks I have to say that these little puppys are not that easy to find... (think +/- 6 seconds)... they are small, close to the ground, sometimes covered and can be in some pretty hairy places.

 

Virtual Caches tend to be non-impacting type hunts that take you to interesting places and, usually, make you learn something about that place.

 

Having read the local (Arizona) news on how "bad" geocaching is... and Colorado Parks recent decision on not allowing caches in parks, and the problems associated with putting a cache on private property (liability for falling in a drainage ditch)... well... looks like V-Caches are the "wave of the future".

 

Having said that... I do think that there is a need to "raise the bar" for bagging V-Caches. Taking a picture in front of a sign seems a little easy, but on the other hand - answering 20 questions to get credit seems a bit much.

 

Perhaps a seperate discussion group dedicated to the "art and science" of V-Caches would be a good place to thrash this out.

 

Just my $.02 worth...

[+OzzieSan]

quote:

---

What's the difference between benchmark hunting and virtual caches? Not much in my opinion.

---

 

With a virtual cache you are given coordinates and providing you have good sat geometry and a good quality signal you should be able to put the finder well within a 30’ circle. Benchmarks (vertical control stations?) on the other hand are often scaled from a topo map at an accuracy of +/- 6 seconds. Well that may as well be from here to the moon. Finding one with just your GPSr would be either a miracle or just plain old luck. And I’m not saying it cant be done it’s just near impossible. So now I guess my question is should we separate the Horizontal / Vertical controls as well? Nawwww. I wish the only # found one could ever see on the site were their own.

[Rubbertoe]

I think something that people are overlooking is that a Virtual Cache is something that a real live person wanted people to find, for a reason.

 

A benchmark is there, waiting to be found - sure... but it wasn't put there by someone with hopes that another person would want to come find it.

 

People on this site place Virtual Geocaches when they want another fellow geocacher to see a location or a monument, or something that they believe is significant. This makes it worthy of being counted in the total caches found catagory, imho.

 

--==< http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe >==--

[+MartyFouts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Bukosky:

Competition is fun. Keeping score matters. Have you never checked the stats sites from time to time to see where you rate? Documenting accomplishments and pride in those accomplishments is a good thing. You don't go anywhere in anything without having accomplishments documented to validate your experience. I'm frequently seeing logs where it is said that they've done, say, eight caches today and they are proud of that acomplishment. Or, a log saying how special this hunt was because they hit number 25 or 100 or whatever. People are interested in that number.

 

Am I saying this is a big thing. No, but it is a good thing.

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

---

 

Some people find competition fun; others don't. Scores only matter to those who do.

 

Even those who find competition fun don't want all of their activities competitive.

 

Same thing is true for documenting accomplishments. Looking at the cache logs on my caches, I'd say almost half the people who find the cache never bother to post on the web site.

 

Not everyone needs there accomplishments externally validated. Some are sufficiently happy just doing them.

 

All of those things are matters of taste, but the point you're missing in all this is that the cache count isn't set up in a way that it can be used for competitive scoring.

 

You'd have to change a lot more than just whether virtuals or locationless count before you could realistically use cache counts for the sort of external validation of competitive accomplishment you are describing.

 

If you want a competitive gps based sport try geodashing. If you want a competitive form of geocaching, then go invent it. But you're just not going to find it here.