Pseudovirtual

[I!]

Tut, tut ... naughty.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Tut, tut ... naughty.

 

This is one of the cases where a cache doesn't exactly follow the guidelines but is producing some really nice logs.

[Pup Patrol]

Perhaps this would be more appropriate posted in the UK forum:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=35

 

wonder how many others are circumventing an official GS directive and the Guidelines in this way?

 

 

 

B.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[+Snoogans]

*yawn*

 

Wake me when these "finds" start to affect my stats.

[I!]

This is one of the cases where a cache doesn't exactly follow the guidelines but is producing some really nice logs.

Couldn't agree more. And isn't this a much better pseudovirtual than, as GS recommended, any challenge would be?

[Mr.Yuck]

Tut, tut ... naughty.

 

IN the immortal words of Pee Wee Herman "I say we let him go". Then again, no one in The UK probably has any idea what I'm talking about.

 

Would I log this? Most likely not. But I did find a missing traditional "turned virtual" in Disney World in 2004 or s9, and I knew it wasn't allowed. If I'm not mistaken, that cache owner was caught about a year or so after I found it. Bet you never know, if I was attending the olympics, I might be tempted to log that thing. It certainly is generating great logs.

[4wheelin_fool]

People don't get upset over that sort of thing these days. Most of the forum regulars that would, have gotten burned out and don't post anymore.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Doesn't bother me. If I was there, I"d log it.

[+zack_black]

Doesn't effect me so I don't care...

[knowschad]

If it was local, and I could get it some other time, I'm sure I'd pass. But if I were on vacation there and wanted to grab some caches, I might just do it. I actually think that it is considerate of the cache owner to allow logging like that during the Olympics.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Mhe, I wouldn't bother with it but I also wouldn't complain about the CO or those that do considering the circumstance.

[+Roman!]

As a responsible cache owner the logs shoud be deleted as this is a traditional and obviously the cache is not there.

 

Personally I would never log this cache.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Roman!

[+The A-Team]

As a responsible cache owner the logs shoud be deleted as this is a traditional and obviously the cache is not there.

 

Personally I would never log this cache.

Also note that they haven't edited their description as directed by Groundspeak:

Update your cache page with the following text – which should be written in red:

 

“This cache is placed close to an Olympic venue/race route, and will be disabled from July 11th to September 10th. Please do not seek this cache during this time.”

Actually, of the 14 caches within 1 km of the cache in question, only 5 have done so.

 

I understand that the CO is just trying to be helpful and let visitors claim a find near the Olympic venues, but since it's a traditional currently without a container, I wouldn't log it. After all, what exactly would I have "found"?

[+SwineFlew]

Any reviewers reading this? tsk tsk tsk tsk....

[+Glenn]

I think it would have been better if it was listed as an event cache or one of those new challenges.

 

I feel for the poor reviewers who are going to have to explain to those who try to do this at other venues and point to this cache when their cache is denied.

[cezanne]

I feel for the poor reviewers who are going to have to explain to those who try to do this at other venues and point to this cache when their cache is denied.

 

Actually I know a (still active) reviewer who acted in such a way for one of his own disabled cache for about 2.5 years at a tourist location and also during periods before when the nano log sheet has been full. The old cache became inaccessible due to a construction site. About half a year another cacher has hidden a replacement container and then the cache has been enabled again and since then the other cacher also visits the cache to provide new log books as the cache gets an extremely high number of visits so that 250 log entries will be used up quickly.

 

Cezanne

[Keystone]

Any reviewers reading this? tsk tsk tsk tsk....

London, England is not in my review territory, though I've published many caches around London, Ohio.

 

So, I will move this thread of local interest from the Geocaching Topics forum to the UK Forum, where the capable UK volunteer team can deal with the matter per their arrangements with Groundspeak regarding the Olympics. I do not know the details of those arrangements any more than the UK reviewers are aware of the negotiations I'm conducting with a Pennsylvania statewide land manager.

[+MartyBartfast]

It's giving lots of people the chance to record the fact that they were at the Olympics, it's getting some nice logs and some great pictures, who's it hurting?

 

As others have said there are already precedents for logging disabled caches. I have a London Multi which is frequently disabled due to activities on the South Bank, and when I do so I invite cachers to log it of they can get close to the GZ as I recognise that there are lots of tourists who only get one chance to grab these while on a visit.

[+Graculus]

Well, I'm a reviewer and I am reading this but unless I'm missing something, I've no idea which cache you are referring to!

 

Edited to add...

Ah... too early in the morning. Found it now!

 

Edited again to add...

 

Sorted.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website - www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

Edited August 11, 2012 by Graculus

[+SwineFlew]

I see the cache is archived now.

 

Smart move of the reviewer.

 

GS doesn't allow virtual. Period. They cant afford to allow it. Once the ball is moving downhill, its hard to stop it.

[+Bean & Sprout]

Absolutely pathetic move by the reviewer in my opinion.

What harm is this cache doing by still allowing to be logged during the Olympics?

 

Caching is meant to be fun and while the CO made it clear not to search for the cache container the people logging it virtually were already going to the Olympics and are not being encouraged to visit the area simply for the cache.

 

There are some truley miserable people out there!

[+Griff Grof]

Typical. Pathetic really; what's wrong with that! I agree with you, Bean & Sprout- there are some truly miserable people out there!

 

Why can't they just bring back virtuals? No one uses Waymarking; there are Waymarks that have been live for years and never been logged. Everyone knows that nearly every single cacher wants them back!

 

A shame to loose this great idea for a virtual because of some guideline! Cheer up!

Edited August 11, 2012 by Griff Grof

[Mr.Yuck]

Absolutely pathetic move by the reviewer in my opinion.

What harm is this cache doing by still allowing to be logged during the Olympics?

 

Caching is meant to be fun and while the CO made it clear not to search for the cache container the people logging it virtually were already going to the Olympics and are not being encouraged to visit the area simply for the cache.

 

There are some truley miserable people out there!

 

Sorry to see this happen, but you had to figure it would once it was "reported" in the forums. I wasn't the least bit bothered by it, but I have to reluctantly agree with the reviewer's decision. Changing a cache to a virtual via the cache description has never been allowed, even back in the old days when virtual caches were still accepted. There was one in my area where the owner tried this in 2002, and it was archived once the CO was caught. It goes without saying you can't expect to pull off this trick 7 years after the last virtual cache in the world was published.

[+Griff Grof]

Absolutely pathetic move by the reviewer in my opinion.

What harm is this cache doing by still allowing to be logged during the Olympics?

 

Caching is meant to be fun and while the CO made it clear not to search for the cache container the people logging it virtually were already going to the Olympics and are not being encouraged to visit the area simply for the cache.

 

There are some truley miserable people out there!

 

Sorry to see this happen, but you had to figure it would once it was "reported" in the forums. I wasn't the least bit bothered by it, but I have to reluctantly agree with the reviewer's decision. Changing a cache to a virtual via the cache description has never been allowed, even back in the old days when virtual caches were still accepted. There was one in my area where the owner tried this in 2002, and it was archived once the CO was caught. It goes without saying you can't expect to pull off this trick 7 years after the last virtual cache in the world was published.

 

Well maybe if the virtual type was allowed then it wouldn't be a problem. With the amount of finders - it goes to show everyone wants the virtual cache type back!

[+Glenn]

Well maybe if the virtual type was allowed then it wouldn't be a problem. With the amount of finders - it goes to show everyone wants the virtual cache type back!

I'd have to qualify a statement like that with everyone wants QUALITY virtuals back. Maybe Groundspeak will rethink their position on virtuals and only allow them in very rare and extreme cases. Then when the conditions change (for example when the Olympic are over and the security restriction are lifted) the virtual will been to be archived.

 

The submission process would have to be separate from the conventional cache submission process. Continue to not allow virtuals as an option on the cache submission instead have another submission process where the reason for the virtual and why no other cache type would work needs to be explained in detail.

[+The A-Team]

Well maybe if the virtual type was allowed then it wouldn't be a problem. With the amount of finders - it goes to show everyone wants the virtual cache type back!

But it hasn't come back at this time, hence the problem.

[+Glenn]

Absolutely pathetic move by the reviewer in my opinion.

What harm is this cache doing by still allowing to be logged during the Olympics?

 

Caching is meant to be fun and while the CO made it clear not to search for the cache container the people logging it virtually were already going to the Olympics and are not being encouraged to visit the area simply for the cache.

 

There are some truley miserable people out there!

 

I'd be pissed if I showed up to what I thought was a traditional cache, search for and not find the container or log, then find out that it was an improperly listed virtual. How hard is it to list it properly?

 

There are plenty of options.

• List it as a Challenge.
  
• List it as a Waymark.
  
• List it as an Event.
  
• Continue to use the archived listing even for visits after the listing was archived because Groundspeak doesn't seem to mind.
  

 

I agree there are some truly miserable people out there.

[+Bean & Sprout]

Absolutely pathetic move by the reviewer in my opinion.

What harm is this cache doing by still allowing to be logged during the Olympics?

 

Caching is meant to be fun and while the CO made it clear not to search for the cache container the people logging it virtually were already going to the Olympics and are not being encouraged to visit the area simply for the cache.

 

There are some truley miserable people out there!

 

I'd be pissed if I showed up to what I thought was a traditional cache, search for and not find the container or log, then find out that it was an improperly listed virtual. How hard is it to list it properly?

 

There are plenty of options.

• List it as a Challenge.
  
• List it as a Waymark.
  
• List it as an Event.
  
• Continue to use the archived listing even for visits after the listing was archived because Groundspeak doesn't seem to mind.
  

 

I agree there are some truly miserable people out there.

 

If you had gone looking for it you wouldn't have found it anyhow, as it's been removed for the Olympics!

 

The cache was only changed for the Olympics as all cache containers in the area have been removed because of the event. The CO would no doubt have changed it back once the container was allowed to be re-instated.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Bean & Sprout

[+Legochugglers]

What a shame it's been archived.

 

It is clearly not a 'Virtual'. It is a traditional that due to absolutely obvious reasons has been temporarily removed for a very short period with the listing amended accordingly. The CO has used some initiative in allowing cachers visiting the Olympics to record some extremely interesting photos/logs relating to their experiences in this area which was not doing anyone any harm. It is clearly not an attempt to set up a long term virtual cache and I assume the CO would have been reverting to the original cache listing anyway next week. I hope the CO can unarchive the cache next week when the Olympics are concluded.

[Mr.Yuck]

What a shame it's been archived.

 

It is clearly not a 'Virtual'. It is a traditional that due to absolutely obvious reasons has been temporarily removed for a very short period with the listing amended accordingly. The CO has used some initiative in allowing cachers visiting the Olympics to record some extremely interesting photos/logs relating to their experiences in this area which was not doing anyone any harm. It is clearly not an attempt to set up a long term virtual cache and I assume the CO would have been reverting to the original cache listing anyway next week. I hope the CO can unarchive the cache next week when the Olympics are concluded.

 

Very nice post, I agree. I too hope they put the container back, and are allowed to have it unarchived. I don't see why this wouldn't be allowed. He already got his little slap on the wrist.

[Mr.Yuck]

Well maybe if the virtual type was allowed then it wouldn't be a problem. With the amount of finders - it goes to show everyone wants the virtual cache type back!

I'd have to qualify a statement like that with everyone wants QUALITY virtuals back. Maybe Groundspeak will rethink their position on virtuals and only allow them in very rare and extreme cases. Then when the conditions change (for example when the Olympic are over and the security restriction are lifted) the virtual will been to be archived.

 

The submission process would have to be separate from the conventional cache submission process. Continue to not allow virtuals as an option on the cache submission instead have another submission process where the reason for the virtual and why no other cache type would work needs to be explained in detail.

 

Me, I think they'll eventually give in. The masses said they want virtuals back, we got Waymarking. Six years later The masses said we still want them back, we got challenges. In both cases, the masses were not happy.

 

I agree with Glen, they need a separate review process. And personally, I think they should get dedicated virtual reviewers, not unlike Earthcache reviewers. And there only need be a small number of them world-wide, also like the Earthcache reviewer situation. They also need to institute password logging for these virtuals. This is not a big deal, the alternative websites that still allow virtuals all allow password logging.

 

I use those websites, and still submit, and find virtuals. I "placed" four of them in late June/early July actually. And no, we don't have a problem with lame ones. Ever. We've all had "the WOW factor" virtual thing beaten into our heads for years over here at this website.

[+wimseyguy]

What is pathetic is the CO attempting to subvert the guidelines for listing a cache at geocaching.com. No one found his cache. Cachers who are in London for the Olympics or otherwise can have a great time without pretending to find this cache or posting random drivel on the page.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

Edited again to add...

 

Sorted.

 

 

Wrong decision!

[+Pharisee]

Edited again to add...

 

Sorted.

 

 

Wrong decision!

 

No... correct decision. Play by the rules or don't play at all... your choice. Simples.

[+Glenn]

 

Edited again to add...

 

Sorted.

 

 

Wrong decision!

 

Actually I think is the right decision. There are other issues with converting a cache to another cache type. Was this cache always listed as 1/1 with no size chosen or was that done when it was converted? If these were changed when it was converted then it also changed the statistic of those who found it before the conversion. This is why type conversions are usually denied and the CO is asked to submit a new listing for the new cache type.

 

If we pretend for a minute that virtual caches were still an allowed cache type I doubt that this cache would have been listed as is. The logging requirement, "To log this cache as found please add a photo of yourself on or around the park or just leave your greetings.", says nothing about having to visit the coordinates (which is a violation of other guidelines). Typically you'd have to take a photo of yourself AT the coordinates and not just somewhere "around the park".

 

Also, the CO wasn't watching the listing for those not following his add a photo requirement because there are a number of log entries without photos.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

Edited again to add...

 

Sorted.

 

 

Wrong decision!

 

There are other issues with converting a cache to another cache type.

 

It wasn't converted, the trad cache was temporarily disabled while the olympics were on and the owner was allowing people to log it while it was unavailable (as I said above I've done the same on one of mine and I've seen it done numerous times on other caches that were temporarily unavailable for a while), once the Olympic restrictions were lifted I'm sure the container would be replaced and it would be re-enabled like all the other caches in London/Cardiff/Newcastle/... suffering the same fate.

 

IMO the only mistake the CO made was changing the name.

 

"Play by the rules or dont play at all"

 

It's a bit of fun, and the CO was being a bit creative, you all need to lighten up a bit.

[+Legochugglers]

What is pathetic is the CO attempting to subvert the guidelines for listing a cache at geocaching.com. No one found his cache. Cachers who are in London for the Olympics or otherwise can have a great time without pretending to find this cache or posting random drivel on the page.

 

Oh dear...subversion? Very dramatic!

Cachers who are in London for the Olympics can have a great time AND post on this cache (sorry, could). What a pleasent post you have recorded to describe your fellow cachers posts/pictures as 'random drivel'. Well done.

[+Legochugglers]

Edited again to add...

 

Sorted.

 

 

Wrong decision!

 

No... correct decision. Play by the rules or don't play at all... your choice. Simples.

 

'Rules?' - I thought they were 'guidelines' which were open to sensible interpretation.

 

Having read some of your previous posts I am surprised that you have never felt the need to challenge some boundaries?

[+Planet]

It was the right decision. And I like virtuals. As a virtual, this would have fallen under the lame category, the way it was written. It would be a couch potato virtual, in the worst way.

You can't change a cache type post-publication. And you can't skirt the rules. The Olympic Security rules. No caches. Why risk it?

If people need to show they were at someplace special like the Olympics, they can always share their stories on Travel Bug pages. I've done that many times.

[+Glenn]

It wasn't converted, the trad cache was temporarily disabled while the olympics were on and the owner was allowing people to log it while it was unavailable (as I said above I've done the same on one of mine and I've seen it done numerous times on other caches that were temporarily unavailable for a while), once the Olympic restrictions were lifted I'm sure the container would be replaced and it would be re-enabled like all the other caches in London/Cardiff/Newcastle/... suffering the same fate.

 

IMO the only mistake the CO made was changing the name.

 

"Play by the rules or dont play at all"

 

It's a bit of fun, and the CO was being a bit creative, you all need to lighten up a bit.

 

Disabling a cache doesn't mean that the guidelines no longer apply and that the CO can do whatever he wants. There is a big difference between being creative and purposely trying to subvert the guidelines. The guidelines aren't there to take the fun out of geocaching. They are there to help keep geocaching fun and enjoyable for all.

[+Pharisee]

Edited again to add...

 

Sorted.

 

 

Wrong decision!

 

No... correct decision. Play by the rules or don't play at all... your choice. Simples.

 

'Rules?' - I thought they were 'guidelines' which were open to sensible interpretation.

 

Having read some of your previous posts I am surprised that you have never felt the need to challenge some boundaries?

 

Let's not get into the 'rules' or 'guidelines' thing again... That's been "done to death" in countless earlier threads and yes... the boundaries do have more than a few Pharisee shaped dents in them.

[+MartyBartfast]

The guidelines aren't there to take the fun out of geocaching. They are there to help keep geocaching fun and enjoyable for all.

 

Go on then, explain to me how the CO allowing people to log his cache while it was disabled for ~8 weeks was in any way going to spoil the fun or enjoyment of anyone?

[Keystone]

The guidelines aren't there to take the fun out of geocaching. They are there to help keep geocaching fun and enjoyable for all.

 

Go on then, explain to me how the CO allowing people to log his cache while it was disabled for ~8 weeks was in any way going to spoil the fun or enjoyment of anyone?

For starters, it creates resentment on the part of other CO's who want to do the same thing. Relax a boundary and everyone will want to move it permanently. When they're told "no," the Me Too Crowd does not have a fun and enjoyable experience. They then sometimes lash out at their volunteer cache reviewer, who is properly applying the listing guidelines. The act of lashing out at one's volunteer cache reviewer is (I hope) not fun and enjoyable. Likewise, it is not fun and enjoyable to be a volunteer on the receiving end of that.

[+Glenn]

The guidelines aren't there to take the fun out of geocaching. They are there to help keep geocaching fun and enjoyable for all.

 

Go on then, explain to me how the CO allowing people to log his cache while it was disabled for ~8 weeks was in any way going to spoil the fun or enjoyment of anyone?

 

First paragraph of post number 35 in this topic.

 

Also, I know that the cache type was never changed but if there is no container at the location, no log to sign and the CO is allowing logs to stand with just a photo or claim that the cacher was there then what you have is a virtual cache.

 

Say that the cache wasn't archived or the cache gets unarchived. Will the cache listing stay the same or will the CO make fundamental changes to the cache stats? Those changes will no longer accurately reflect the cache that those found when the cache was disabled and removed. This is why when a major change is made to a cache it is preferable to archive the cache and then have it relisted.

[Keystone]

Absolutely pathetic move by the reviewer in my opinion.

What harm is this cache doing by still allowing to be logged during the Olympics?

 

Caching is meant to be fun and while the CO made it clear not to search for the cache container the people logging it virtually were already going to the Olympics and are not being encouraged to visit the area simply for the cache.

 

There are some truley miserable people out there!

Here is an example of what I was talking about. I know Graculus to be very professional and a very happy person. I would characterize his handling of this situation as "courageous," knowing there will be the Bean & Sprouts of the world out there waiting to fling poo at him.

[4wheelin_fool]

It was disrespectful to do that against the wishes of Groundspeak and with the Olympics going on.

 

Does a find really need to be logged to satisfy the OCD compulsions?

[+Legochugglers]

A whole over reaction by all of you spoilsports. We are only talking about a very small window of time. We are only talking about a very unusual set of circumstances (temporary disablement during the Olympics). We are only talking about an exception involving one of the greatest sporting events on Earth. Some of the smiles and positive comments on the logs (for a few weeks) should surely override the guidelines. If it hadn't been brought to the forums the other day nobody would have been any the wiser.

 

Just a little bit of leeway for just a little bit of time, I hope, was all the CO wished. If he keeps it as a 'virtual' after this weekend and doesnt convert everything back then please... hunt him down and 'hang him high!

 

Could the correct response have been:

This type of listing amendment is contrary to the guidelines however for 7 further days I am going to make an exception and allow such positive logs to stand and continue during such a wonderful global celebration of sport. There is no precedent set by this decision and I will ensure the listing is amended within 7 days or it will be archived.

[+tozainamboku]

I suppose I can fathom why Groundspeak archived this cache. When virtuals were grandfathered, they certainly realized that people would find ways to stretch the guidelines and continues to create virtual caches. When these caches are discovered TPTB feel they have to take action to ensure the guidelines are being followed.

 

I find the puritan outcry that the cache owner was allowing people to log his disabled cache a bit silly. Prior to the Olympics there apparently was a cache to find here, and I have little doubt that after the games, the owner would have replaced the cache. What happened here is the owner realized that many geocachers from all over the world would be in the area and he wanted to give them an opportunity to visit the location and record their experience as a geocache. No puritan would be forced to log a find. In fact, a puritan geocacher would see the cache is disabled and would choose not to look or would log a note. The people who log a find are ones who don't necessarily follow the puritan definition of a find and who like to extend what they consider geocaching. Since the cache owner was allowing find logs, they made a choice to take him up on that offer. No puritans were harmed by this.

 

I know already from other incidents that Groundspeak, and particularly many reviewers, while not concerned that an owner may allow a few logs when a cache is disabled or unavailable, are concerned with perception that there is a way to create a virtual cache (even temporarily). Once this cache became widely visible (for whatever reason) they were forced to archive it, lest others follow suit and create temporary virtuals whenever a physical cache goes missing or becomes unavailable. At one time, users could change the type of a cache post publication and it was common for owners to convert their traditionals to virtuals when the container went missing. The fear is that any time a physical cache became unavailable, it would be converted to a temporary virtual and the owner would delay replacing the cache or doing whatever was involved to re-enable it.

 

I'm a little upset that Graculus saw fit to lock the listing as well as archive it. I suspect a few Olympic tourist may have "found" this cache and haven't log it yet. They will be quite disappointed to find the listing locked when they get home, and most likely think it unfair that the people who logged it before it was locked get a smiley but they don't. Someone with a special needs child will no doubt point out how Groundspeak hates chindlren.

[dodgydaved]

I suppose I can fathom why Groundspeak archived this cache. When virtuals were grandfathered, they certainly realized that people would find ways to stretch the guidelines and continues to create virtual caches. When these caches are discovered TPTB feel they have to take action to ensure the guidelines are being followed.

 

I find the puritan outcry that the cache owner was allowing people to log his disabled cache a bit silly. Prior to the Olympics there apparently was a cache to find here, and I have little doubt that after the games, the owner would have replaced the cache. What happened here is the owner realized that many geocachers from all over the world would be in the area and he wanted to give them an opportunity to visit the location and record their experience as a geocache. No puritan would be forced to log a find. In fact, a puritan geocacher would see the cache is disabled and would choose not to look or would log a note. The people who log a find are ones who don't necessarily follow the puritan definition of a find and who like to extend what they consider geocaching. Since the cache owner was allowing find logs, they made a choice to take him up on that offer. No puritans were harmed by this.

 

I know already from other incidents that Groundspeak, and particularly many reviewers, while not concerned that an owner may allow a few logs when a cache is disabled or unavailable, are concerned with perception that there is a way to create a virtual cache (even temporarily). Once this cache became widely visible (for whatever reason) they were forced to archive it, lest others follow suit and create temporary virtuals whenever a physical cache goes missing or becomes unavailable. At one time, users could change the type of a cache post publication and it was common for owners to convert their traditionals to virtuals when the container went missing. The fear is that any time a physical cache became unavailable, it would be converted to a temporary virtual and the owner would delay replacing the cache or doing whatever was involved to re-enable it.

 

I'm a little upset that Graculus saw fit to lock the listing as well as archive it. I suspect a few Olympic tourist may have "found" this cache and haven't log it yet. They will be quite disappointed to find the listing locked when they get home, and most likely think it unfair that the people who logged it before it was locked get a smiley but they don't. Someone with a special needs child will no doubt point out how Groundspeak hates chindlren.

 

A very reasoned post - and the voice of reason .

[+Graculus]

Locking a cache is an unusual step but my experience of what may be considered a controversial decision like this is that the cache logs become a forum which is not their purpose. We have a forum here for discussion and I'm glad people are using it to put forward their points of view.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer reviewer for geocaching.com