Poll on Cacheless caches

June 1, 2003

It seems that the biggest ongoing controversy related to geocaching is whether "cacheless" caches should be part of geocaching.com.

First, let me say I think there are some clever and interesting locationless caches out there. For example, "Where's in a Name?". That cache requires cooperation with another cacher, probably in another country. An interesting way to meet people.

Virtual caches are a bit more problematic. In almost all cases, a virtual cache could be replaced with a multi-cache (using something at the site of the virtual cache to lead to a real cache). I have done a few virtual caches, and they were at fun spots that I'm glad I now know about. However, they would have been better IMHO if they lead to a real cache. None of the ones I have done *had* to be just virtual.

There's also benchmarking, confluence points, letter-boxing, and other similar related hobbies. So, which direction do you think geocaching.com should take?

What are your thoughts on cacheless caches?

[This message was edited by BeachBuddies on June 01, 2003 at 09:21 AM.]

1.6k · June 1, 2003

What the heck do you mean by "cacheless caches?" Is it logbook-only caches, logless caches, or what?

Can't answer if I don't know the question.

CR

June 1, 2003

By "cacheless" caches, I mean to include those which do not have any item(s) concealed by the person who registered them. Generally, this means locationless caches and virtual caches.

I would not include logbook-only caches in this category. I'm not sure what "logless" caches are, but if they have a hidden cache (just without a logbook), then I would not consider those "cacheless" either.

6.5k · June 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BeachBuddies:
Grrrr.. I seem to be typing-impaired today hehe. Is there a way to edit posts?

yes, just click the "Edit" icon in the bottom right corner of your posts. This options will time out after a while, but its ?? a couple days, I think.

6.5k · June 1, 2003

So, Im reading threw this and Im wondering...

Did you know Locationless caches (scagenger type caches), are not being approved, until the 'new' gc.com site comes online. At which time locationless caches will have their own section (or so I've heard).(paragraph #1) And this would be like the 'hiding' of the benchmarks (one of the poll choices).

Do you realize that gc.com is currently (or its what is claimed) not approving Virtuals if a phyisical could be placed there? (paragraph #3)

"So, which direction do you think geocaching.com should take?"

Im not sure what your asking?...

If you mean, should Groundspeak drop eveything but phyiscal caches? No, I dont think they should. I think they should finish some of the current projects (the new site for example).

And I personally would also like to see a couple rules relaxed (logbook required & current virtual placement). I think those two are being counter productive. Blocking new caches helps the growth of caching how?

And yes I realize why are *needed*, but I think it would be better if they were applied on a cache by cache basis, not so much the current 'Every cache must comply'.

quote:
Originally posted by BeachBuddies:
It seems that the biggest ongoing controversy related to geocaching is whether "cacheless" caches should be part of geocaching.com.

First, let me say I think there are some clever and interesting locationless caches out there. For example, "Where's in a Name?". That cache requires cooperation with another cacher, probably in another country. An interesting way to meet people.

Virtual caches are a bit more problematic. In almost all caches, a virtual cache could be replaced with a multi-cache (using something at the site of the virtual cache to lead to a real cache). I have done a few virtual caches, and they were at fun spots that I'm glad I now know about. However, they would have been better IMHO if they lead to a real cache. None of the ones I have done *had* to be just virtual.

There's also benchmarking, confluence points, letter-boxing, and other similar related hobbies. So, which direction do you think geocaching.com should take?

What are your thoughts on cacheless caches?

6.5k · June 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BeachBuddies:
Great, thanks.. I fixed a few typos. Now if I could only delete my extra posts -- that's not allowed though.

Your not the only person who has noticed that

1.6k · June 1, 2003

Okay, I assume you're defining "cacheless caches" as virtual caches meaning there is nothing put in the location by the cache hider. This would be versus a physical cache, be it a letterbox, tradtional, multi, logbook-only, and logless (a physical container with only a code word or odd object with which you email the owner for verification so you can claim the find.)

I don't care for them and only log them because they are there. If they were seperated out, I'd probably go for them as often as I go after benchmarks.

CR

June 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by welch:
Did you know Locationless caches (scagenger type caches), are not being approved, until the 'new' gc.com site comes online. At which time locationless caches will have their own section (or so I've heard).(paragraph #1)

Yes, I had heard a little about that. I tried to post a locationless cache a while back, and it was archived at the time. I have not heard many detail about what the changes will be. I think having a separate area for locationless caches will be a good thing.

quote:
welch:
And this would be like the 'hiding' of the benchmarks (one of the poll choices).

I'm not very familiar with benchmarks yet. I'll check it out, thanks.

quote:
welch:
Do you realize that gc.com is currently (or its what is claimed) not approving Virtuals if a phyisical could be placed there? (paragraph #3)

I knew they were getting more strict about it. That's probably good. Though, like you, I hope it's more of a guideline than a hard-and-fast rule.

quote:
welch:
"So, which direction do you think geocaching.com should take?"

Im not sure what your asking?...

I'm really just trying to do a survey to find out how geocachers feel about locationless caches. I'm not trying to decide (or even influence) the future of geocaching.com. Just wondering if there's a consensus among most cachers. But it is a difficult topic to cover in a single poll. There's so much variety, even within the single category of locationless caches.

2.7k · June 1, 2003

Where's the option for accepting virts, but not accepting locationless? I didn't vote but if this choice was here that's how I would have voted.

Locationless must go. The game is using a gps to go to certain set of coordinates. I've done some great virtuals...they should stay, but priority should go to regular caches and that's already happening.

6.5k · June 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BeachBuddies:
I'm really just trying to do a survey to find out how geocachers feel about locationless caches. I'm not trying to decide (or even influence) the future of geocaching.com. Just wondering if there's a consensus among most cachers. But it is a difficult topic to cover in a single poll. There's so much variety, even within the single category of locationless caches.

Ok, Im confused.

If your trying to find out what other cachers think about Locationless caches, why post a poll about Cachless caches?

Overlap between the two? Yes Same? No

June 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by welch:
If your trying to find out what other cachers think about Locationless caches, why post a poll about Cachless caches?

I should have written "cacheless" there, as I did in the title of the poll. This isn't meant to be a scientific, definitive study Welch. I just thought it was an interesting topic for discussion. And polls are kind of fun.

June 1, 2003

For the life of me I have never been able to understand why people have such a big problem with virtuals and locationless caches being on this site. If you don't like them or don't want to do them that is fine. Don't do them and shut up. You know what they are before you go. It is not like you have to spend any time going to them only to find out that it is not a regular cache.

I think locationless caches are just plain dumb, so I don't do them. But some people seem to like them, so more power to them. I think if you start to limit what is going on here the sport is going to start to die because there is not going to be a chance for new ideas and it won't grow. I guess that would be OK with the purists here. But man this stuff is all pretty new. So those few can sit around in a circle and pat themselves on the back or whatever and say how great they are because they kept all those nuts with their stupid caches out of the game.

I have done virtuals that I liked and some I did not like, same for regular caches. Plus I have always thought that virtuals are a great way around the silly rules of those like the NPS. You kind of really get to stick it to them by using their own things to create the cache. Not really much they can do about it and how can they complain if they have put something there for people to see. But I know there are many here that would have a problem with that because oh gee don't want to make any of those people angry with geocaching because they won't want to work with us in the future. Yea like all of our playing nice has gotten us so far to date.

So go ahead and get rid of the virtuals, locationless, benchmarks and the few of you can rule the day and this site. While you are at it why don't you get rid of caches that have a difficulty of less than say 3. That would clear out all of those people that have no desire to climb mountains, make long hikes and just are looking for something that is a little fun in their spare time.

Everybody is here for their own reason. And it is likely different than yours. So just let everybody be and let everybody enjoy the sport how they like.

June 1, 2003

Personally I dont like them, I dont go to them and most likely never will. The only reason I would would be to get them off of my searches. I've seen most of em anyway so its not really that fun.

24.7k · June 2, 2003

After I've exausted everyting within 100 miles of here locationless keeps me caching.

There is a time and a place for everthing and there are people who you wish would have a time and place somewhere away from you, but that's a digression.

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

June 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by GrizzlyJohn:
I think if you start to limit what is going on here the sport is going to start to die because there is not going to be a chance for new ideas and it won't grow.

Grizzly -- I tend to agree with you. But I do think geocache.com's attempt to encourage real caches where possible (instead of virtual caches) is a good thing. What are your thoughts on that policy?

-BeachBuddies

6.5k · June 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BeachBuddies:

quote:
Originally posted by welch:
If your trying to find out what other cachers think about Locationless caches, why post a poll about Cachless caches?

I should have written "cacheless" there, as I did in the title of the poll. This isn't meant to be a scientific, definitive study Welch. I just thought it was an interesting topic for discussion. And polls are kind of fun.

Ah... ok, that explains some things.

June 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BeachBuddies:
Grizzly -- I tend to agree with you. But I do think geocache.com's attempt to encourage real caches where possible (instead of virtual caches) is a good thing. What are your thoughts on that policy?

I really do think there is room for all of them. I just have to look at it as the difference between softball and hardball. You might like to do both but sometimes you would rather do one over the other. And you have most of the equipment to do either. If geocache.com wants to only go in the direction of real caches then they should just say so and be done with it. Those that like to do virtuals can go elsewhere. But other sites are out there already, they just don't have the numbers so nobody goes there. Chicken and egg kind of thing. I think TPTB know that and at this point are trying to define the game more to how they think it should be played. I just think it is way too early in the life of this sport to start narrowing the framework.

Again, I just don't see the problem with both being here. If you don't want to play softball then don't. I think both are valid and it still goes back to what you want to get out of this. Finding an interesting area where I may learn or experience something new can be had with either regular or virtual caches. And for my money that is what it is about, not finding plastic toys in the woods. I have had caches that I did not find but enjoyed the time I spent looking for them. I will take fun and a good time where I can find it. And that has happened with both types. But I was not around when this sport or site was started so maybe what I am looking to get out of it is way off base from what it was meant to be. If I am in it for the wrong reasons then someone should say so and I will have to plan around that.

1.6k · June 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by GrizzlyJohn:
Again, I just don't see the problem with both being here.

I don't think are many people who think that shouldn't be any such thing as a virtual cache.

If I'm understanding correctly virts came about because of a need to be able to post a location where which you simply could not plant a physical cache. What virts evolved into, though, is a lazy person's way to post a cache at a remotely interesting spot. Every road-side marker became target for people who wanted to post a virt. This caused a deluge of uninteresting chaffe.

The second problem involved when a virt goes in it blocks anyone from placing a physical cache at the same spot or within .10 miles! Most of the time, a physical cache could have easily been placed, but because someone was too lazy, and only made it a virt, people who do like to trade and sign a logbook--and don't like having to email someone--are shorted the experice they like.

In short, you can't take away from the experience by making it a physical cache, but you certainly can take away from the experience by making it a virtual!

(That is, unless a finder is the type of person who only likes to show up in the general area and doesn't like looking for physical caches. If so, they're in the wrong hobby!)

That's why there is a bias towards physical caches, even if it's a log-only micro.

CR

June 3, 2003

CR,

I think you raise some valid points. I am not sure we are all that far off. But let me just turn things a little.

You say: "…is a lazy person's way to post a cache at a remotely interesting spot. Every road-side marker became target for people who wanted to post a virt. This caused a deluge of uninteresting chaffe."

I can see that. And you are right about some of them just being placed by lazy people, but one man's trash is another man's gold. I think the same could be true of regular caches. There are well placed and poorly placed ones. But I don’t want somebody deciding what a good cache is and what is a bad one and then doing away with the ones they don’t think are good.

You say: "The second problem involved when a virt goes in it blocks anyone from placing a physical cache at the same spot or within .10 miles! Most of the time, a physical cache could have easily been placed, but because someone was too lazy, and only made it a virt, people who do like to trade and sign a logbook--and don't like having to email someone--are shorted the experice they like."

Well that is true with any type of cache that is placed. It really is a matter of who gets there first. Again to use the baseball example, if there are fields to be used in a public park whoever gets there first gets to use them. And if it is a couple of people just wanting to shag some flies it does not make what they are doing any less important than the group of 18 that want to play a full game on that field. Of course this assumes there is not some sort of reservation system in place to use the fields. Perhaps the two groups can work things out between them. Maybe there is a place for the one group to hit some flies while the other group plays. But for me those people shagging flies have the same right to use that field as anybody and that should be respected.

You say: “In short, you can't take away from the experience by making it a physical cache, but you certainly can take away from the experience by making it a virtual!”

I really can’t agree with that. It is an experience. It may not be one you like but someone else may. And that can go both ways. Maybe there are people that only want to go after virtuals, I don’t know but maybe, I don’t think any less of them or how they want to play the sport. It is their choice and I think they should have the choice. The way I see it the point is becoming if they should have that choice at geocaching.com.

I have done virtuals where a regular cache could probably have been placed. But I would have been looking for something different if that was the case. And I may have missed some interesting information because I was not reading the signs or whatever to answer the question. So I went to an area I may not have otherwise gone, I learned something I might have not otherwise known. That seems like a positive experience to me. I am not really sure I have ever learned anything from opening up a regular cache. With that said I kind of feel almost the opposite, I usually take away something from the experience of virtual. Don’t get me wrong I enjoy the thrill of the hunt but other than signing the log I am not sure I really feel a strong need to open the container after I physically find it. But again I just may be looking to get something from all of this that is way different than most others here.

And just one more point. Not that I am in any way suggesting that caches should meet ADA requirements but there may very well be people that can’t physically do regular caches. I don’t think they should be excluded from enjoying the fun of finding and placing caches. And that certainly would not be a matter of lazy. I know that is not what you meant and I am sure that is not how you feel. But I did just want to point out there are many reasons why people do what they do.

[This message was edited by GrizzlyJohn on June 03, 2003 at 09:37 AM.]

1.6k · June 3, 2003

GrizzlyJohn,

Points well taken.

One point I want to clarify. I said, "In short, you can't take away from the experience by making it a physical cache, but you certainly can take away from the experience by making it a virtual!" That didn't come out the way I wanted, I was in a hurry, but that's the way things go when you're running late for work.

What I really meant was, with a physical cache you can make a cache with everything that people want; the view, the sights, the history, the hike, whatever. Whatever it is that will make a good virtual you can use to make a good physical cache. However, because of the very nature of a virt, you lose the up-close hunt, the clever hide, the log signing, the trades, the "end-game"

On the other hand, AISI, the only advantages a virt has over a physical is the ability to go into places a physical can't and possibly appeal to people who don't like the "end-game."

Therefore, it's my assertion that, other than being prohibited in some places and all other things be equal, a physical cache can appeal to a much broader range of people by having more attributes that people like than can a virtual. This makes a physical cache more "valuable."

I understand that there are many really good virts. These are most certainly better for our sport than any number of lame physicals. For a long time I been of the opinion that a physical cache should be able to supercede a virtual cache at any one particular spot. That being said, I'd be sorely disappointed if someone placed a lame, ill-maintained physical bumping a nice virt. That may very well be the very reason TPTB haven't been warm to the idea.

Again, if all things being equal, a physical can be everything a virt can and more. However, it doesn't work the other way around.

And, no, I didn't mean that everyone placing virts are lazy. I just mean that too many people would take the easy way out. Next thing we know, the only thing we're doing is running around finding words on signs and emailing people for verification. Bletch! Not my cup of tea!

CR

June 4, 2003

CR,

I am sorry for misunderstanding that part of your post. I do see what you mean. No a virtual can not provide all that a regular cache can. But as we have both said that is not important to some people.

An earlier post used the word "encourage". OK I understand staying with your roots and regular caches are still the bread and butter of the sport. I don't see a problem with that. But from what I have heard the approval of virtuals have become nearly impossible. With the rules changing and approvers each having their own little standards. That just causes concern for me.

As for the .1 mile between caches. If a regualar cache can be placed where a virtual is would it not also be likely that it can be placed .1 mile away? Its a big world out there, going .1 of a mile away would give someone two caches if they so choose. I don't see .1 mile as that great of a distance, I know I sometimes have to walk further than that to go a meeting, I work on a big medical campus. Yes there will no doubt be cases that this is not going to work but if we really are the community we try to think we are then the two cachers should be able to work this out between them. They can either be a good neighbor or a bad one. We all get to make that choice. I guess my cache would be the one with the loud music and the tacky pink flamingoes in front of it.

My only point in all of this was that I think the two can exist side by side. It is obvious what they are going in and one can chose to do or not do them. I will likely never do a 5/5 cache. And if I did I would never come back here and complain that it took forever to get to the area after much difficulty and after searching for an hour I did not find it. I would expect that going in. I would also suspect there are some here that don't do 1/1 caches because they find them too easy. That is all a good thing.

For me at least I don't want to see the choices limited. But to be honest I think some of this has to do with stats. I have seen mentioned in other threads that virtuals are OK if they had their own count like benchmarks. And also some don't want to see them on their searches. PQs can handle that and perhaps maybe a filter can be added to the online search pages if and when the new site gets done.

So if the different types had their own count and if filters were added to screen out certain types would everybody be happy?

1.6k · June 4, 2003

Like I've said many times, I don't have a problem with virts as long as only a virt is able to be there. If you can put a physcial, even if it's a log-only micro or common log for all visitors, then it needs to be a physical.

As for it being difficult to get a virt approved, I wouldn't know. I've never submitted a virt, only physicals and one locationless.

CR

June 5, 2003

I think virtuals are great. We should keep them up and going.

For more opinions on this topic, refer to another topic "Upset because our historical cache was turned down" in the Groundspeak forum.

"Nice find! I must go tell Harry, Ron and Hermione."

June 5, 2003

Variety is the spice of Life... especially the Geocaching parts of life. Each type of cache has its merits and appeals to different types of individuals. If we wish to keep our sport growing, we should continue to push the parameters of caches. Provide appropriate filters for the players, to facilitate choice, and let the caching continue.

If I want to see a sunrise, I'll STAY up for it!

Poll on Cacheless caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment