Virtual Caches

[cezanne]

Today the Geocaching.com can survive on just physical caches. Groundspeak has a whole other site to deal with listing interesting locations without needing to hide a physical container.

 

This whole other site is not well suited for implementing mystery and multiple stage elements.

 

One of my favourite caches is this one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=dc8e2869-d48d-4aa9-b608-b1794c9e405c

 

One first has to solve two puzzles to obtain tree names. Then the field work starts where on has to walk along the route provided by a hand drawn map and find and identify the (partially) exotic trees (many of which have no sign attached) along the route. The remaining task to compute coordinates and then find a film can at a boring location (as the interesting ones are all blocked by the saturation guideline) is the most insignificant part of the cache which does not add to the experience at all. I'd like to see virtuals of the type that result by omitting the container from the cache above. I learnt a while lot about trees by that cache and the same experience could not be provided by a challenge or waymark. It appears to me that in the minds of the people at Groundspeak, the single location/object concept based on bring someone to location X/object X is so predominant that everything is based on it and everything else is seen as exception which has to be implemented by workarounds that come later.

At Waymarking even routes (hiking trails or bike paths) are seen as single objects and not as the route which includes many different locations of potential interest.

 

I believe there are some reasons to support people who enjoy both finding physical caches and visiting interesting places.

 

I have never enjoyed a cache that did not either bring me to an interesting location or where the way to the cache was rewarding. I do not enjoy searching for and finding cache containers. That's just the part I undergo in order to finish off the experience and to report on it later on in the internet and being able to filter out the already completed visits.

 

While geocaches have very often provided me with rewardable experiences, I cannot think of a single rewarding experience that waits for me at Waymarking or the trashed challenge site in my area and all my ideas for virtuals in my area fit to neither of these sites.

 

In some cases there exists the option to implement a virtual idea by adding a container, but there are many cases where I'm reluctant to do so. When hiding a container, the cache will be visited by many people who are not interested into the intellectual background at all and who will be annoyed by my preferred setup while this could be avoided by having a separate category with a separate counter and the option to be be not visible.

 

 

Cezanne

[Clan Riffster]

With all do respect I can tell you have a background in law enforcement and not a background in education.

Interesting. I'm assuming you've seen my resume?

I suppose since I've been in law enforcement since '82 and have only been an educator since the late 90's, that you could easily dismiss all the classes I've taught. My point was to express that I can write a lesson plan for anything, including the historical value of the hypothetical rotting deer carcass.

 

Just because you couldn't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

[+wimseyguy]

I just figured he was going by the donuts in your avatar's hands?

Edited December 16, 2012 by wimseyguy

[+Bear5719]

With all do respect I can tell you have a background in law enforcement and not a background in education.

Interesting. I'm assuming you've seen my resume?

I suppose since I've been in law enforcement since '82 and have only been an educator since the late 90's, that you could easily dismiss all the classes I've taught. My point was to express that I can write a lesson plan for anything, including the historical value of the hypothetical rotting deer carcass.

 

Just because you couldn't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

I suppose since I've been in law enforcement since '82 and have only been an educator since the late 90's, that you could easily dismiss all the classes I've taught. My point was to express that I can write a lesson plan for anything, including the historical value of the hypothetical rotting deer carcass.

 

Me too! I mean deer carcasses were very important to the American Indians, Right? lol

[+Bear5719]

For those who think that just having new reviewers just to deal with virtual caches, I've got news for you. I manage the Waymarking category "Best Kept Secrets". This is set up to be a lot like virtual caches with some specific requirements on the listing. Now being on Waymarking we don't get a lot submissions.

 

You are gonna have to show me around this Waymarking! I love secrets! Which is also probably how come I like geocaching-nobody even knows what is right under their noses all the time

[+Bear5719]

I suppose I will stand by my opinion that there was a definite "caches are containers with a logbook" stance taken by the then 10 Employee or so Groundspeak, Inc.

I tend to disagree with this. In the early days, TPTB did what they could to encourage more geocaches so the could attract more geocachers and grow. Virtual caches solved a particular problem. People wanted to put their geocaches in places they felt were more interesting and they found that in many of the these places they could not hide a physical cache. Whether is was sbell's virtual cache at Disneyland or one at an historic cemetery, these soon became quite popular.

 

Now there were of course some geocachers who felt that geocaching was about going for a hike in the woods and finding a box with trade items. They didn't see the point of visiting Disneyland or a cemetery to find a cache. So from the start there was a dispute whether or not these should be caches. But I'm pretty sure Groundspeak liked that these increased the cache count and appealed to a new demographic.

 

As geocaching continued to grow it attracted people who enjoyed being able to find many caches in relatively close by and easy-to-get-to places. Whether these people were motivated by a bigger find count or they were just a new demographic of urban dwellers who found using a GPS to find hidden things a fun activity doesn't matter. They began hiding smaller and smaller containers, often in areas previously considered impossible to hide a cache in. Many of the locations that would have been virtuals could now have a physical cache. And since at the time virtuals counted in the proximity rule, there was often a battle between placing a virtual and placing a physical.

 

It was likely that these disputes lead to more people (and perhaps now some of TPTB) to argue that physical caches should take precedence over virtual caches. This view was strengthened by cacher owners who converted their physical caches to virtuals when the container went missing. Virtual caches became the perfect choice for cache owners who did not want to have the expense of containers or the hassle of maintaining them. And Jeremy himself argued that since you weren't leaving anything, so long as you weren't trespassing, you didn't need permission for a virtual cache. So they were much easier to hide.

 

I think the real reason for the Wow factor was to level the playing field. Virtual caches were becoming the cache of choice. (Of course you could ask why there isn't a Wow factor for micros to keep them from overrunning place where a regular could be hidden).

 

It does seem a bit strange that when wow failed they didn't just go back to letting community to decide what proportion of virtual to physical there would be. Instead the stopped accepting virtual caches altogether to ensure that the ratio would eventually be zero. So perhaps by that time TPTB made the decision that a cache has to be a physical container. Certainly they no longer had a need for virtuals to solve the original problem of trying to increase the number of caches being placed.

 

If it were true that TPTB made the decision that a cache had to be a physical container, then what are event posting, EC, CITO, Wherigo, and the now dead Challenges about? These are items without a physical container. Just saying

[+OHail]

I've only done a dozen or so Wherigo caches but each one had a container and a log to sign at the final location.

[+The Blue Quasar]

Show me a Virtual Cache and I'll show you how it should be a Stage of a Multi-Cache.

 

I have never seen a single Virtual that I could not easily enjoy just as much as used as offset data. I still saw the same cool thing, still read the same info, but then got to find a real cache instead of just a photo-op.

 

8D BQ

[+Totem Clan]

Show me a Virtual Cache and I'll show you how it should be a Stage of a Multi-Cache.

 

I have never seen a single Virtual that I could not easily enjoy just as much as used as offset data. I still saw the same cool thing, still read the same info, but then got to find a real cache instead of just a photo-op.

 

8D BQ

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=9cef62eb-560e-449f-9c88-0531caa92def

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=25c6c117-8bb3-4ca3-9011-99fd17589148

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=ab895a9c-44b5-401f-a2e7-82e6f0ec33c8

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=1a8d321f-7189-44c6-bd70-e32055f05b2c

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=8f7352e3-09f8-4abd-bd4c-9d3a9a0c5b09

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=2e8b4773-5fdf-46be-b09e-4b72b3659888

 

I could go on.

 

Edit to say the only reason these are not traditionals is because they are in the Wichita Wildlife Refuge where traditional caches are banned.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Totem Clan

[+geodarts]

Show me a Virtual Cache and I'll show you how it should be a Stage of a Multi-Cache.

 

I have never seen a single Virtual that I could not easily enjoy just as much as used as offset data. I still saw the same cool thing, still read the same info, but then got to find a real cache instead of just a photo-op.

 

8D BQ

 

Obviously you have not done many of the ones that I have found. Zion, Yosemite, Bryce. Everglades. Incan Salt Ponds. Toroweap, North Rim of the Grand Canyon. Death Valley. Some of the better ones involve finding objects on protected land, that are not susceptible to offset equations. Others are deep into land so that offsets would have to take one a long way away, on routes that may or may not be practical. Some virtuals simply work better as virtuals than as strained offset stages, leading to a real cache like a film can in a guard rail.

 

But let's get to specifics.

 

Incan Salt Pans. Fort Monroe was one of several in Yosemite that involved finding objects, including some that I almost dnf'd. Ed Watson Was a Bad Man took me deep into the everglades and would not have made a good multi. I do not see West Kennett Longbarrow (Wilts) as a multi, but it enhanced my experience as part of this game in significant ways.

 

Some virtuals I have found would have made a great earthcache, like Stories in the Rocks: Yosemite Valley Geology but you would probably not consider that to be a real cache either. Others, like a multi-virtual Trying Hard to Get Ahead or many of the virtuals on the national mall simply work better as a virtual even if the land is much more accessible. And then of course there is Disneyland Geocaching

 

I have found offset multis that start on protected land, and agree that in some situations they can be appropriate. And for the most part, I do not think plaques, interpretive signs, or inscriptions make particularly good virtuals. Those things are similar to lamp post or guard rail hides. I do not want to parrot back information that I will promptly forget, but find something. With luck it will be something I can learn from, that will show me things in a new light, that I would have otherwise missed.

Edited December 17, 2012 by geodarts

[+BlueDeuce]

Show me a Virtual Cache and I'll show you how it should be a Stage of a Multi-Cache.

 

I have never seen a single Virtual that I could not easily enjoy just as much as used as offset data. I still saw the same cool thing, still read the same info, but then got to find a real cache instead of just a photo-op.

 

8D BQ

 

Don't be silly, people don't place multies anymore.

[cezanne]

Show me a Virtual Cache and I'll show you how it should be a Stage of a Multi-Cache.

 

I have never seen a single Virtual that I could not easily enjoy just as much as used as offset data. I still saw the same cool thing, still read the same info, but then got to find a real cache instead of just a photo-op.

 

8D BQ

 

Don't be silly, people don't place multies anymore.

 

All my caches involve more than one stage. Nevertheless, I'd wish to have the option of virtual caches available.

I even go that far to claim that those who like multi caches, but for whom searching for containers is not the key element of why they are attracted by geocaching will have a larger desire for virtuals than those for whom single location constructions are the norm. For the latter group Waymarking at least offers an option to be considered which is not the case for the other group.

 

All good Earthcaches I know are about learning something and not just about seeing a cool thing and reading some info. Performing an experiment or obtaining a higher level of understanding involves much more than reading a few lines of text.

 

Moreover, there are many situations where a container can be placed, but where I neither would like to place one nor to search for one. I do accept that many cachers are into geocaching because they enjoy finding containers, but this is not true for everyone. In addition, there are cachers who enjoy finding containers, but they also enjoy other activities that are cache-related in some way.

 

In my city there exist streets where almost every house is special and one could set up many more specialized city walks which show objects that fit to a common theme than there is place for containers. Moreover, by separating the activities room is left for those who are not eager to spend an hour or several hours walking around and dealing with topics they are not interested in and who prefer to find several containers in the same time. That's one of the reasons why I'd like to see a type of virtual that is not subject to the saturation guidelines (like for Earthcaches), but which does not count for the find/hide count of caches which involve a container.

 

Cezanne

[+Manville Possum]

Show me a Virtual Cache and I'll show you how it should be a Stage of a Multi-Cache.

 

I have never seen a single Virtual that I could not easily enjoy just as much as used as offset data. I still saw the same cool thing, still read the same info, but then got to find a real cache instead of just a photo-op.

 

8D BQ

 

Don't be silly, people don't place multies anymore.

Users do seem to show less interest in my multi's. Virtuals are really cool if done correctly. They take me places that I would not have found on my own and they can give the seeker insight of a area. The argument is over about land managers may choose to not allow physical geocaches, but will allow virtuals. Cherokee, Jefferson, and George Washington National Forests already have a geocaching policy in effect, and they require permits of $59 per year per geocache in what is known as District 8 which is from Texas to the East Coast of Virginia. We have already seen mass archival of geocaches in Pa. on DC&R property. I used to enjoy EarthCaches, but they changed a few years ago, the ones that I enjoyed most are no longer accepted by GSA.

I would prefer seeking a photo op without my camera than a multi cache, and I'm not into urban geocaching.

So myself and others are losing places to geocache. I have geocaches listed in State Parks that required permits, but how many are willing to spend the $59 to hide a geocache on a hiking trail on NFS property? Not me.

 

Edit to add link. http://www.fs.usda.gov/activity/cherokee/recreation/otheractivities/?recid=34864&actid=103

Edited December 17, 2012 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+Bear5719]

And anyone who has not found the virtual at the WWII Memorial in DC, and who knows the history of that awful conflagration, needs to find the virtual at that awe-inspiring memorial. One of my favorites, and i never would have seen it had it not been for virtuals. What a great location!

 

I'm not trying to pick, I'm just curious about this statement. Are you saying that without a virtual at the WWII Memorial, you would not have visited it?

 

I guess I'm asking because I understand when a virtual takes you to someplace obscure, or something you didn't even know about without the virt, but the WWII Memorial is a pretty major stop for DC tourists.

 

Quick question: Have you done the virtual in WWII? Because I have and I was reminded its not really about the memorial as it is an annotation. It brought tears to my eyes because of my time oversears. So regardless of the fact that it is near the memorial, its is really an added point that would be overlooked (certainly on my part) if I were "merely visiting" the site.

[+geodarts]

Show me a Virtual Cache and I'll show you how it should be a Stage of a Multi-Cache.

 

Quick question: Have you done the virtual in WWII? Because I have and I was reminded its not really about the memorial as it is an annotation. It brought tears to my eyes because of my time oversears. So regardless of the fact that it is near the memorial, its is really an added point that would be overlooked (certainly on my part) if I were "merely visiting" the site.

 

Last Stop for a Weary Traveler is another example of a virtual that would not be a good multi. It took me longer to find than many traditionals, but I was determined. I would not have wanted to miss that particular object on our visit, but I also would not have known about it had it not been for the virtual.

 

There are many virtuals in general locations I would have visited regardless of caching, but the best focus my attention on aspects of a site in a way that most offsets cannot do. Gathering information at a site on the national mall, to go off in search of yet another urban micro far enough away so that capital security did not have an issue with a container, would have detracted from the experience (both as a visitor and as a cacher).

 

The virtuals in Arlington National Cemetery were another example of that. You might have been able to use some of the sites to create an urban micro offset, but why? It would have detracted from the experience that the virtual gave me -- and at the end of the day, I probably would not have gone off in search of an urban micro that bore no relationship (other than numbers) to what I had visited. I don't think a final location that was a film can in a news rack would have enhanced either this game or my experience there.

Edited December 17, 2012 by geodarts

[+Team Taran]

I could have easily completed Last Stop for a Weary Traveler without visiting the spot. I guessed what I would be looking for and found the information on the web. I agree that I might not have known about it without the cache listing but a multi would have served the same function and it can be completed without visiting the memorial. I didn't but I could have.

[+geodarts]

I could have easily completed Last Stop for a Weary Traveler without visiting the spot. I guessed what I would be looking for and found the information on the web. I agree that I might not have known about it without the cache listing but a multi would have served the same function and it can be completed without visiting the memorial. I didn't but I could have.

 

Sure. I knew what I was looking for without looking it up on the web. There are many virtuals, earthcaches, and traditionals that people can claim as finds without necessarily doing it the right way. Indeed, one of my favorite virtuals (Incan Salt Pans) that I cited above was archived because the owner disappeared, it could not be adopted by a more active cacher, and people began to armchair it. But the ways in which virtuals can guard against this is another post that I do not want to get into at the moment.

 

And yes, you could use what you have found at the Traveler to create an alpha numerical set of numbers that could be tweaked with basic math to get you off the mall a sufficient distance to accommodate an urban micro of some sort. Whether it should be done, as The Blue Quasar suggested, is a matter about which I would disagree.

[+Bear5719]

Many people have suggested thoughts/suggestions about rules that may prevent a repeat of the same problems if virtuals made a comeback. Can we come up with some more ideas?

I have been attempting to review all posts and pull together thoughts and suggestions posted these last few days. (sorry, but we went camping and I was off-line). That is a work in progress as there are several posts to read. I feel that some people believe that these types of caches have a place, and when well 'placed' could be accepted, ok, maybe. There are a lot of details, but I feel good about the suggestions presented.

[+releasethedogs]

I just figured he was going by the donuts in your avatar's hands?

I was going by what was posted in his profile. If he is currently a educator, it is curious as why he says he is in law enforcement.

 

The reason why a rotting deer wont work as a lesson because that deer is not historical. Yes, in general they were important to native peoples of North America but not that specific deer. Not to mention that deer is not permanent or semi-permanent.

 

Still if you are willing to prove me wrong id love to see a lesson plan including how it fits into the national education standards as well as state of Florida's educational standards.

Edited December 18, 2012 by releasethedogs

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I just figured he was going by the donuts in your avatar's hands?

Still if you are willing to prove me wrong id love to see a lesson plan including how it fits into the national education standards as well as state of Florida's educational standards.

 

Forget the deer carcass. If you want a standard level for that language used for a new type of virtual cache, Florida or national standards might make sense for a virtual cache in Florida. However, this is an international game, played in many countries where literacy rates are far different than they are in the U.S., and I'd have a hard time supporting an article in the guidelines which dictates that people in other countries have to comply with U.S. guidelines.

[+DonB]

They were concerned with the impact of containers on their land. He was willing to approve earthcaches that did not have that perceived impact.

 

Interesting. As if the grass you walk on and bush you walk through cares whether you're there for a virtual or a real cache.

The bush might if you break branches trying to get a cache out of the middle of it, which has happened.

[+briansnat]

Many people have suggested thoughts/suggestions about rules that may prevent a repeat of the same problems if virtuals made a comeback. Can we come up with some more ideas?

I have been attempting to review all posts and pull together thoughts and suggestions posted these last few days. (sorry, but we went camping and I was off-line). That is a work in progress as there are several posts to read. I feel that some people believe that these types of caches have a place, and when well 'placed' could be accepted, ok, maybe. There are a lot of details, but I feel good about the suggestions presented.

 

Here is my idea. Bring them back as was, but with no smiley or hide credit. Keep a separate count like like challenges and benchmarks. With a separate count, few will list them, fewer will look for them and the reviewers won't have to worry about reviewing very many of them. And both people who are still enthralled with virtuals without a smiley will still get to find them.

 

Problem solved across the board.

Edited December 18, 2012 by briansnat

[+bflentje]

Here is my idea. Bring them back as was, but with no smiley or hide credit. Keep a separate count like like challenges and benchmarks. With a separate count, few will list them, fewer will look for them and the reviewers won't have to worry about reviewing very many of them. And both people who are still enthralled with virtuals without a smiley will still get to find them.

 

Problem solved across the board.

 

Uh.. no. I don't want them back. But if you bring them back, bring them back as they were (along with the impossible, some kind of wow or not-lame factor).

[+SwineFlew]

Many people have suggested thoughts/suggestions about rules that may prevent a repeat of the same problems if virtuals made a comeback. Can we come up with some more ideas?

I have been attempting to review all posts and pull together thoughts and suggestions posted these last few days. (sorry, but we went camping and I was off-line). That is a work in progress as there are several posts to read. I feel that some people believe that these types of caches have a place, and when well 'placed' could be accepted, ok, maybe. There are a lot of details, but I feel good about the suggestions presented.

 

Here is my idea. Bring them back as was, but with no smiley or hide credit. Keep a separate count like like challenges and benchmarks. With a separate count, few will list them, fewer will look for them and the reviewers won't have to worry about reviewing very many of them. And both people who are still enthralled with virtuals without a smiley will still get to find them.

 

Problem solved across the board.

Problem solved for the reviewers. But keep in mind that geocaching is a number game. People wont do them unless it gives them something in return. Geocaching is a online point(smiley) game that you play in the real world. I know not everybody play like that, but it seems a good number of them do wherever they admit it or not.

Edited December 18, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+geodarts]

Here is my idea. Bring them back as was, but with no smiley or hide credit. Keep a separate count like like challenges and benchmarks. With a separate count, few will list them, fewer will look for them and the reviewers won't have to worry about reviewing very many of them. And both people who are still enthralled with virtuals without a smiley will still get to find them.

 

Problem solved across the board.

 

If Groundspeak could be persuaded to start a new game for them along these lines, perhaps they should be given a different name - "challenges" might work.

Edited December 18, 2012 by geodarts

[+tozainamboku]

Here is my idea. Bring them back as was, but with no smiley or hide credit. Keep a separate count like like challenges and benchmarks. With a separate count, few will list them, fewer will look for them and the reviewers won't have to worry about reviewing very many of them. And both people who are still enthralled with virtuals without a smiley will still get to find them.

 

Problem solved across the board.

 

If Groundspeak could be persuaded to start a new game for them along these lines, perhaps they should be given a different name - "challenges" might work.

When Challenges were introduced TPTB indicated that they understood a desire for locations where a physical cache couldn't be hidden (or it would be inappropriate, or nobody would do a multi offset, etc.) They indicated that they wanted something that would not interfere with what they view as the core of geocaching - i.e. hiding and finding containers.

 

They accomplished this with Challenges by

1. Not them counting as finds
   
2. Not needing review
   
3. Not being owned by anyone once published
   
4. Not appearing on maps or in pocket queries
   

Challenges failed because

1. They did not count as finds
   
2. They weren't reviewed, so many were considered not worth doing
   
3. They weren't owned (though eventually you got some credit for submitting one, you had no control once published)
   
4. They didn't appear on maps or in pocket queries, requiring extra work to combine challenges with geocaching.
   

 

There may be other ways to accomplish having containerless locations without interfering with the core of geocaching (as TPTB see it) or there may be some definition fo containerless locations that can co-exists with the core (e.g. there is a specific object that you find and a way to verify that you found the intended object).

 

Whatever is suggested would also need to satisfy people who

1. want them to count as finds
   
2. want them to have some "wow" quality
   
3. want them to be owned like caches with owners able to enforce the logging requirements
   
4. want them appear on maps and in pocket queries so finders can look for them along with physical geocaches.
   

Edited December 18, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+Bear5719]

Ok, Brainsnat suggested in post #222 to bring them back as is, create a separate counter like challenges or benchmarks, and so did Cezanne in post #108.

This seems like a reasonable idea, I like my smiley, but I also like the fact I can find a virtual IF I feel like it and they are easy to find on the same cache page.

 

Toz replied that he had no problem with smiley credit if the purpose of the visit was to find the virtual as 'originally intended'. I like the idea of virtuals in specific places such as a physical object, parks which prohibit physical caches and other locations in which placement of a physical container is neither appropriate or possible.

 

More rules suggested:

Joshism wrote:

1) virtuals have a normal cache page, use the same ghost icon and still count toward stats. -this seems very reasonable.

2) virtuals should also have proximity rules, there by effectively limiting the placement of some-I agree!

3) limit the frequency of Virtual publication. -I agree, further I think that virtuals should only be allowed to be submitted by individuals with xxxx number of caches or xxxx number of years of membership. My thoughts are that individuals with less than 1000 finds should not be allowed to submit virtuals (it could be higher), and have maintained a membership for at least 5 or more years. Thoses are just my thoughts

4) all new views should require a confirmation code. You must enter code to receive credit for the find. -I second that thought as well.

5) possibly voting on virtuals:thumbs up or thumbs down-I think this is also a good idea. Perhaps also a time limit, say of one year to be peer reviewed, votes cast, and then further reviewed for purpose of standards. (I would like to add one mans(or woman's) trash is another one treasure. ) possibly a way to hand this idea is much like a teacher rubric to address specific standards virtuals should meet. (aka the WOW factor, or the interesting location)

Tos wrote in post 121(I think) that the guide lines for virtuals should

6) still emphasize the use of the gps and be a specific object. Agreed, they should be specific and not be park bench, a view or a beach location. (however I can think of one specific location in Turkey...

7) clearly outline owner responsibilities and need for couch potato logs to be handled as part of the cache owner responsibilities. Yes, this does seem to be an issue with many many cachers and should be addressed.

8) outline owner maintainance requirements and he suggested a fee. (i dont favor a fee, i already pay for emembership) He also stated that if the owner does not renew their membership the virtual should be retired. I agree with this, except I would suggest that some specifi virtuals should be adoptable.

 

I would also like to suggest:

9) virtual submission window should be narrow such as a specific day of the month and perhaps limited to only once a year. This should reduce the number of submissions to something manageable.

10) create a numerical limit per state on the number of allowable virtuals. This is just a thought and may be hard to establish. For example some states have more historical locations, civil war, etc trail of tears, while others have more area, aka The great state of Texas.

10) as stated above-virtuals should be adopted if they seem truely stellar. I for one( and others I'm sure) have siliently maintained one of the older physical caches in town, just to keep it going. No sign of the owner, but as one of the oldest in the state it certainly is worth it!

 

This is just a start but a good one. Brought up several times is the integration of Waymarking into caching. I do not know enough about this to make an intelligent comment, but it would seem that since GS originally split that area off in the first place, that linking the two would be unlikely. However again and again I noted that Waymarking is already set-up for virtuals, so it would seem that the system of Waymarking might be the area that needs improvement itself. Idk!

[+Bear5719]

Here is my idea. Bring them back as was, but with no smiley or hide credit. Keep a separate count like like challenges and benchmarks. With a separate count, few will list them, fewer will look for them and the reviewers won't have to worry about reviewing very many of them. And both people who are still enthralled with virtuals without a smiley will still get to find them.

 

Problem solved across the board.

 

If Groundspeak could be persuaded to start a new game for them along these lines, perhaps they should be given a different name - "challenges" might work.

When Challenges were introduced TPTB indicated that they understood a desire for locations where a physical cache couldn't be hidden (or it would be inappropriate, or nobody would do a multi offset, etc.) They indicated that they wanted something that would not interfere with what they view as the core of geocaching - i.e. hiding and finding containers.

 

They accomplished this with Challenges by

1. Not them counting as finds
   
2. Not needing review
   
3. Not being owned by anyone once published
   
4. Not appearing on maps or in pocket queries
   

Challenges failed because

1. They did not count as finds
   
2. They weren't reviewed, so many were considered not worth doing
   
3. They weren't owned (though eventually you got some credit for submitting one, you had no control once published)
   
4. They didn't appear on maps or in pocket queries, requiring extra work to combine challenges with geocaching.
   

 

Whatever is suggested would also need to satisfy people who

1. want them to count as finds
   
2. want them to have some "wow" quality
   
3. want them to be owned like caches with owners able to enforce the logging requirements
   
4. want them appear on maps and in pocket queries so finders can look for them along with physical geocaches.
   

 

I agree , they need to count as finds, they should have standards, they should be woened, and they should appear on maps and queries.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Bear5719

[+niraD]

I think that virtuals should only be allowed to be submitted by individuals with xxxx number of caches or xxxx number of years of membership. My thoughts are that individuals with less than 1000 finds should not be allowed to submit virtuals (it could be higher), and have maintained a membership for at least 5 or more years.

I know people who have found more than 1000 caches on a single trip to the ET Highway and Route 66 numbers run trails. I know others who have spent years seeking and finding hiking caches, who only recently reached the 1000 milestone (or who still haven't reached it yet). I know others who never post "Found It" logs online.

 

I don't think the number of finds logged online is the right measure for whether someone is worthy of listing a New Improved Virtual.

[cezanne]

Challenges failed because

1. They did not count as finds
   
2. They weren't reviewed, so many were considered not worth doing
   
3. They weren't owned (though eventually you got some credit for submitting one, you had no control once published)
   
4. They didn't appear on maps or in pocket queries, requiring extra work to combine challenges with geocaching.
   

 

I do not agree at all with the first two reasons. Moreover, the situation regarding your fourth point was even more severe: Challenges were lacking any reasonable search process.

 

Whatever is suggested would also need to satisfy people who

1. want them to count as finds
   
2. want them to have some "wow" quality
   
3. want them to be owned like caches with owners able to enforce the logging requirements
   
4. want them appear on maps and in pocket queries so finders can look for them along with physical geocaches.
   

 

Why? I do not think that all these aspects can be fulfilled at the same time.

There will never exist one approach that pleases everyone. Those for whom it is essential that virtuals count as finds, are typically those for whom quality is not an important aspect. So there will be no way to keep the number of lame submissions within tolerable limits without a review process taking into account quality which is not a feasible approach.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Packanack]

"There will never exist one approach that pleases everyone. Those for whom it is essential that virtuals count as finds, are typically those for whom quality is not an important aspect. So there will be no way to keep the number of lame submissions within tolerable limits without a review process taking into account quality which is not a feasible approach."

 

The above statement is about as broad an unsupported generalized statement as can be imagined.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Whatever is suggested would also need to satisfy people who

1. want them to count as finds
   
2. want them to have some "wow" quality
   
3. want them to be owned like caches with owners able to enforce the logging requirements
   
4. want them appear on maps and in pocket queries so finders can look for them along with physical geocaches.
   

 

There have been all sorts of suggestions about how to bring back virtual caches but even though I applaud the effort that releasethedogs took in drafting a new virtual guidelines draft, I think that it still goes too much into specifics. Instead of debating specific guidelines (such as "you must have found 1000 caches before you can submit a virtual cache listing") I think we should take a step back and consider more general requirements and the short list that toz suggests is worth looking at closer.

 

First, to address #2. I think that rather than trying to achieve some nebulous goal like a "wow" factor, I suspect most would be happy with a "not-lame" factor. In any case, rather than get into specifics, this boils down to establishing some minimum quality criteria and a review process that ensures that virtual cache complies. As an amendment, I'd suggest that a requirement that "The management of virtual caches shall not add to the burden of current reviewers." The suggestion to establish a separate group of volunteer reviewer just for virtual caches is just one way of implementing that requirement.

 

I'd actually bundle #1, #3, and #4 together. Cache ownership, determining whether or not there is a find, and the use of maps, PQ, and other discovery mechanism are all implemented as core processes that we've come to associate with geocaching. For any new virtual cache type suggestion, I would content that, as much as possible, Virtual Caches need to use the processes that we use for other cache types, and yes, that means counting them as a find.

 

I think that the main reason that Challenges failed, was not due to lame Challenges, because the system did not inhibit one from creating a Challenge that, in the act of completing it, it could (though there are some exception) have essentially the same user experience as "finding" a virtual cache. The problem, as I saw it, was that the processes were not the same. People wanted something that was "like" a geocache. Despite some peoples insistence that a geocache is defined by whether or not it has a container or requires finding an object, I'd contend that it's more about the processes that we use for discovering listing, organizing that information, tools which assist in route planning, methods for creating and managing listings, and all the tools we have to chronicle our experiences.

[cezanne]

"There will never exist one approach that pleases everyone. Those for whom it is essential that virtuals count as finds, are typically those for whom quality is not an important aspect. So there will be no way to keep the number of lame submissions within tolerable limits without a review process taking into account quality which is not a feasible approach."

 

The above statement is about as broad an unsupported generalized statement as can be imagined.

 

Already many years ago virtuals reached the point where they caused too much work to the reviewers. I'm completely convinced that nowadays the situation would be much worse.

There are certainly cachers who would prefer virtuals to count as finds/hides and who appreciate quality, but most of them would not refrain from doing virtuals they enjoy just because they do not count. In my experience the majority of those who base their decision on whether or not to visit a cache or whatever uniquely on the +1 aspect do not care about whether they visit a cache at a unique location or at a parking lot.

 

Cezanne

[+Bear5719]

"There will never exist one approach that pleases everyone. Those for whom it is essential that virtuals count as finds, are typically those for whom quality is not an important aspect. So there will be no way to keep the number of lame submissions within tolerable limits without a review process taking into account quality which is not a feasible approach."

 

The above statement is about as broad an unsupported generalized statement as can be imagined.

 

However, it does seem to be true. I never realized this issue would be quite so contentious. And in fact, we can't agree on much and we are just a few. Imagine 100's of submissions without clear guidelines.

[+briansnat]

Many people have suggested thoughts/suggestions about rules that may prevent a repeat of the same problems if virtuals made a comeback. Can we come up with some more ideas?

I have been attempting to review all posts and pull together thoughts and suggestions posted these last few days. (sorry, but we went camping and I was off-line). That is a work in progress as there are several posts to read. I feel that some people believe that these types of caches have a place, and when well 'placed' could be accepted, ok, maybe. There are a lot of details, but I feel good about the suggestions presented.

 

Here is my idea. Bring them back as was, but with no smiley or hide credit. Keep a separate count like like challenges and benchmarks. With a separate count, few will list them, fewer will look for them and the reviewers won't have to worry about reviewing very many of them. And both people who are still enthralled with virtuals without a smiley will still get to find them.

 

Problem solved across the board.

Problem solved for the reviewers. But keep in mind that geocaching is a number game. People wont do them unless it gives them something in return. Geocaching is a online point(smiley) game that you play in the real world. I know not everybody play like that, but it seems a good number of them do wherever they admit it or not.

 

You are right, but most people who clamor for the return of virtuals claim that they enjoy virtuals because of the awesome places that virtuals lead them to and the things that they learn from virtuals/. Take away the smiley and I doubt that those virtual fans will be as enamored of those great places and lessons.

[+nikcap]

Well, this topic has been amazing to follow. The more I read e more I'm convince the that now deceased Geocaching Challenges was really the best replacement conceptually. The implementation needed a little help, but really, all of the grief that people had about virtual caches were addressed.

Perhaps the only option that would ensure the integrity of the finds is if all found log had to be approved by the CO. There really is no way to accomplish the "Wow" factor, as it really something that is subjective, other than using the thumbs up/thumbs down system. Which ended up getting abused by those that where against Challleneges in the first place.

The current list of conditions that should be meet to place a virtual is way too long. The last thing that geocaching needs is more rules.

Again, the more is thread plays out the more I realize that virtual caches are not geocaching. It really is a different game.

[+releasethedogs]

I just figured he was going by the donuts in your avatar's hands?

Still if you are willing to prove me wrong id love to see a lesson plan including how it fits into the national education standards as well as state of Florida's educational standards.

 

Forget the deer carcass. If you want a standard level for that language used for a new type of virtual cache, Florida or national standards might make sense for a virtual cache in Florida. However, this is an international game, played in many countries where literacy rates are far different than they are in the U.S., and I'd have a hard time supporting an article in the guidelines which dictates that people in other countries have to comply with U.S. guidelines.

I said florida because that is where he claims to be a teacher and thus he would know the state standards from there. You know what they say about assuming...

[cezanne]

Well, this topic has been amazing to follow. The more I read e more I'm convince the that now deceased Geocaching Challenges was really the best replacement conceptually. The implementation needed a little help, but really, all of the grief that people had about virtual caches were addressed.

 

That might well be, but at the expense of making them very different from caches and turning away fans of virtual caches like myself.

If I were interested into visiting tourist locations and taking photos, I well could use Waymarking which is still more user-friendly than challenges have ever been.

 

I'm interested into virtuals with educative elements, multiple stages and potential surprise character. Typical descriptions will have a length of 2 pages or more and of course do not fit into the extremely narrow challenge concept which was rather directed to smartphone owners who wish to spend a few minutes of boredom.

 

As my own area is regarded, I see the biggest potentials for virtuals in urban areas. I'm not interested into searching for containers in parking lots, parking houses, in front of buildings etc while I do enjoy to learn from others who know more about a certain area. The virtuals I have in mind neither fit on Waymarking nor would they have fitted as challenges. I need to admit that already the term game somehow does not fit to what I have in mind - it fits even less here than for caches with a container. I'm interested into virtuals that somehow act as a guide that is available in a more flexible and independent way than if booking a human guide.

While soccer and chess are certainly games, I have never associated sightseeing or learning history with playing a game.

 

As long as a replacement for the old virtuals does not easily allow caches like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0807c011-4ae1-4cf8-8518-05714a13b329

it will be a failure for me. Challenges were extremely far from even getting near to being educative in the way demonstrated by the EC above.

There are enough knowledgeable cachers in my area such that rewarding virtuals would show up if the numbers people are scared off the activity.

 

Again, the more is thread plays out the more I realize that virtual caches are not geocaching. It really is a different game.

 

Even though I'm an advocate of not counting virtuals together with caches with containers (the same is true for events, ECs etc), I do not agree. For me there are two categories: Caches with containers and containerless caches. Earthcaches fit much better to my idea of geocaching than attending an event in a pub. I often needed my GPSr to find an EC location while I do not need my GPSr to find a pub. Moreover, I associate geocaching with an outdoor activity and not with an indoor activity. From my point of view event caches not even fit my idea of containerless caches. That's of course only my personal point of view and I do know that there are many different opinions around.

 

Cezanne

Edited December 19, 2012 by cezanne

[+Packanack]

Long /short

Virtuals have been part of Geocaching from early on.

 

Groundspeak the website business is trying to develop a division that uses the containerless cache concept and hasn't gotten it to the point where it sells to an acceptable level for resources employed.

 

One thing that does come through in these discussions is that some would like to run everyone else's game. They say " Don't count them, Wow Factor, Ensure the integrity of the loggin". Who cares about how anyone else plays the game and who is to say how I or any other person should play this game. Who cares if I pick up a guardrail magnet cache on my way home or ride my bike 120 miles for a single cache, as long as they meet guidelines they are in and they count just the same.

[cezanne]

One thing that does come through in these discussions is that some would like to run everyone else's game. They say " Don't count them, Wow Factor, Ensure the integrity of the loggin". Who cares about how anyone else plays the game and who is to say how I or any other person should play this game. Who cares if I pick up a guardrail magnet cache on my way home or ride my bike 120 miles for a single cache, as long as they meet guidelines they are in and they count just the same.

 

Actually, my main reason why I'm in favour of not counting them is not because I care how others "play the game", but rather because I see what I have suggested (and what also has been suggested by briansnat) as the only chance that virtual caches of the type I enjoy could work without a review process.

 

I admit that my top priority is my own enjoyment in the activity. I neither enjoy Waymarking nor did I enjoy challenges as neither of these two concepts allows to come up with virtuals of the type I enjoy and/or would like to offer for others to enjoy.

 

Another aspect that plays a role is that there are cachers like myself who see some potential in virtuals to have a lower rate of lame submissions than for caches where a container is hidden. In many urban areas weeding out the few caches that are worth to be visited has got very tiresome. If virtuals count the same way as caches with a container, then urban virtuals would end up pretty much in the same way (or probably worse) than caches with containers. If the activity is popular only among those who really care about the locations shown and the experiences provided and are willing to spend time on virtuals even though they do not count, the percentage of virtuals which are similiar to parking lot micros will be much lower than otherwise.

 

Cezanne

[+Bear5719]

One thing that does come through in these discussions is that some would like to run everyone else's game. They say " Don't count them, Wow Factor, Ensure the integrity of the loggin". Who cares about how anyone else plays the game and who is to say how I or any other person should play this game. Who cares if I pick up a guardrail magnet cache on my way home or ride my bike 120 miles for a single cache, as long as they meet guidelines they are in and they count just the same.

 

Actually, my main reason why I'm in favour of not counting them is not because I care how others "play the game", but rather because I see what I have suggested (and what also has been suggested by briansnat) as the only chance that virtual caches of the type I enjoy could work without a review process.

 

I admit that my top priority is my own enjoyment in the activity. I neither enjoy Waymarking nor did I enjoy challenges as neither of these two concepts allows to come up with virtuals of the type I enjoy and/or would like to offer for others to enjoy.

 

Another aspect that plays a role is that there are cachers like myself who see some potential in virtuals to have a lower rate of lame submissions than for caches where a container is hidden. In many urban areas weeding out the few caches that are worth to be visited has got very tiresome. If virtuals count the same way as caches with a container, then urban virtuals would end up pretty much in the same way (or probably worse) than caches with containers. If the activity is popular only among those who really care about the locations shown and the experiences provided and are willing to spend time on virtuals even though they do not count, the percentage of virtuals which are similiar to parking lot micros will be much lower than otherwise.

 

Cezanne

 

I think this is a good observation. Many urban caches are kinda, mostly disappointing, and I have stopped doing lots of them. For me the hunt/game is not about quantity, but quality of fun! My numbers may be low, but the fun is first.

[+Manville Possum]

Many people have suggested thoughts/suggestions about rules that may prevent a repeat of the same problems if virtuals made a comeback. Can we come up with some more ideas?

I have been attempting to review all posts and pull together thoughts and suggestions posted these last few days. (sorry, but we went camping and I was off-line). That is a work in progress as there are several posts to read. I feel that some people believe that these types of caches have a place, and when well 'placed' could be accepted, ok, maybe. There are a lot of details, but I feel good about the suggestions presented.

 

Here is my idea. Bring them back as was, but with no smiley or hide credit. Keep a separate count like like challenges and benchmarks. With a separate count, few will list them, fewer will look for them and the reviewers won't have to worry about reviewing very many of them. And both people who are still enthralled with virtuals without a smiley will still get to find them.

 

Problem solved across the board.

Problem solved for the reviewers. But keep in mind that geocaching is a number game. People wont do them unless it gives them something in return. Geocaching is a online point(smiley) game that you play in the real world. I know not everybody play like that, but it seems a good number of them do wherever they admit it or not.

 

You are right, but most people who clamor for the return of virtuals claim that they enjoy virtuals because of the awesome places that virtuals lead them to and the things that they learn from virtuals/. Take away the smiley and I doubt that those virtual fans will be as enamored of those great places and lessons.

Geocaching is a numbers game to most, but I would like to list some virtuals here because the Waymarking site is used very little. I enjoy waymarks and virtuals but can't tell the difference between them.

[Clan Riffster]

I just figured he was going by the donuts in your avatar's hands?

I was going by what was posted in his profile. If he is currently a educator, it is curious as why he says he is in law enforcement.

 

The reason why a rotting deer wont work as a lesson because that deer is not historical. Yes, in general they were important to native peoples of North America but not that specific deer. Not to mention that deer is not permanent or semi-permanent.

 

Still if you are willing to prove me wrong id love to see a lesson plan including how it fits into the national education standards as well as state of Florida's educational standards.

I had assumed someone in the education field would comprehend that a person can wear many hats. Obviously, my assumption was in error, and I cry your pardon. I am in law enforcement. I have been some flavor of LEO since 1982. I also teach. Would I call myself an educator? Probably not, as that is not the primary source of my income, and, my teaching is almost all law enforcement related.

 

I hope that clears things up for you.

 

Back to the historical value of the rotting deer carcass...

Putrifying Bambi

A virtual cache by BillyBobNosePicker

 

Back in 1841, BillyBobNosePicker's great, great, etc uncle Bubba NosePicker was the first practicing shaman in Volusia County Florida. Following a bitter, 45 year long feud betwixt neighbors, the NosePickers and the Flaglers, (which incidentally ended up defining the border between Volusia and Flagler County), Uncle Bubba was arrested for witchcraft and, without so much as a trial, he was hung at this spot. As he expired, Uncle Bubba released his death curse on the angry mob which strung him up, but as he was not a very good shaman, his curse missed the mark, targeting the innocent forest dwellers instead.

 

On the 13th day of each month, an animal inexplicably perishes at this exact spot. Because these animals died from dark magics, their remains do not get consumed by scavengers, and instead, the carcass will remain until it completely rots away. The Wiccan Council from the nearby Spiritualist town of Cassadaga verified the tenacity of the spell cast by Uncle Bubba, confirming that creatures killed by such means tend to repel living animals.

 

The University of Central Florida, and Seminole State College have teamed up in an attempt to debunk this bit of historical curiosity, (cited in the book Weird Feuds), but to date, have not come up with a rational explanation. One archeological dig conducted at the site revealed various animal bones going back well over two hundred years, concentrated in a very dense area, comparing the density of the bones to the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angelas California.

 

At the land owner's request, digging is no longer permitted on this site, and all traces of that dig have been purged in an attempt to preserve the history of witchcraft in Central Florida for future generations.

 

Come visit the site, and see if you can feel the residual thaumaturgic energies left over from so many deaths.

 

To claim this find, describe, as best you can, what kind of critter is currently decomposing here.

 

So, maybe a rotting deer carcass could have significant historical value...

Edited December 19, 2012 by Clan Riffster

[+nikcap]

Long /short

Virtuals have been part of Geocaching from early on.

 

Groundspeak the website business is trying to develop a division that uses the containerless cache concept and hasn't gotten it to the point where it sells to an acceptable level for resources employed.

 

I've wonder that. Exactly how long have Virtual Caches been around, and how did the first one come about?

 

I recall a couple in NJ that were actual physical caches, and when the cache went missing, the CO changed the cache type. (There was also on linked in this thread were that happened ... there was also no verbiage about how to validate your find)

 

One thing that does come through in these discussions is that some would like to run everyone else's game. They say " Don't count them, Wow Factor, Ensure the integrity of the loggin". Who cares about how anyone else plays the game and who is to say how I or any other person should play this game. Who cares if I pick up a guardrail magnet cache on my way home or ride my bike 120 miles for a single cache, as long as they meet guidelines they are in and they count just the same.

 

I really think the problem here is that the users are saying one thing, but they really want something else. If cacher really want to to visit interesting locations, Challenges and Waymarks would be fine. I use Waymarks all the time to check out an unfamiliar area to see if there is anything interesting around. It's obvious that most player want a quick smilie to +1 their find count. And that's fine and dandy too. But, that would really cheapen the experience of what Virtual cacher are, and why they are so appealing now.

 

I fall into the majority I believe. I could care less how people play. Just physically sign the log book and log it on-line. Don't be afraid to log you DNF's and be responsible when placing your caches. If a power trial is your thing, knock yourself out. If 5 mile hikes get you going, enjoy. Just take pride in you hides and finds, this is a social game, with thousands of player. You have the opportunity to make many people happy with you actions. Take advantage of it.

 

So, while I always accepted that Virtuals where part of the game. This discussion and the basic rule of Geocaching had me believing that containerles caches are not Geocaching.

Really, the only rule to Geocaching is sign the log.

Regardless on how you get there or if you trade items, or log it on-line, the only thing that matters is if your name is written in the logbook.

Virtual caches do not have logs and ultimately the validity of your find is at the will of the CO.

[+tozainamboku]

Really, the only rule to Geocaching is sign the log.

 

The problem with this is that that really isn't a rule. First of all if you wanted to take the the so-called rules listed in Geocaching 101, then is isn't the only rule. There is a rule about trading fairly and one about sharing your experience on Geocaching.com

 

While for a physical cache, the idea to sign the physical logbook once you have found the cache, this isn't exactly an enforceable rule. Cache owners are allowed in most instances to delete online find logs if the physical log is not signed, but they are just as permitted to allow the online find log, if they believe that the find is legitimate.

 

The issue with virtual caches is just when to allow an online find and whether these are counted with other finds and attended logs.

 

Some people believe that if you don't count virtual finds in the find count, you eliminate the problem of when to allow online finds. When you provide a condition for an online log such as email me with what you find at the site, some people will feel that if they are able to figure out the answer by research on the web and not by visiting the cache they should be allowed a find. Some people may argue that that couch potato logs will be less likely if the online find log doesn't count and others will say that if the online log doesn't count there is no reason to care if it is a couch potato log.

 

However, the argument can be made that neither of the views is correct. People will still find the challenge of figuring out a virtual's logging requirement without a visit is fun and even if the virtual count is separate they will still do this. The point of geocaching (virtual included) is to go out and visit some location and find something there. It is not about sitting at home learning about something so you can answer questions.

 

This is one issue I have with EarthCaches. Many can be done without visiting. And when some owners required pictures to prove you were at the site, the guidelines for EarthCache were changed to not allow this. If EarthCaches are not causing a problem with couch potato logs, I would like to know why.

[+nikcap]

Really, the only rule to Geocaching is sign the log.

 

The problem with this is that that really isn't a rule. First of all if you wanted to take the the so-called rules listed in Geocaching 101, then is isn't the only rule. There is a rule about trading fairly and one about sharing your experience on Geocaching.com

 

While for a physical cache, the idea to sign the physical logbook once you have found the cache, this isn't exactly an enforceable rule. Cache owners are allowed in most instances to delete online find logs if the physical log is not signed, but they are just as permitted to allow the online find log, if they believe that the find is legitimate.

 

The issue with virtual caches is just when to allow an online find and whether these are counted with other finds and attended logs.

 

Some people believe that if you don't count virtual finds in the find count, you eliminate the problem of when to allow online finds. When you provide a condition for an online log such as email me with what you find at the site, some people will feel that if they are able to figure out the answer by research on the web and not by visiting the cache they should be allowed a find. Some people may argue that that couch potato logs will be less likely if the online find log doesn't count and others will say that if the online log doesn't count there is no reason to care if it is a couch potato log.

 

However, the argument can be made that neither of the views is correct. People will still find the challenge of figuring out a virtual's logging requirement without a visit is fun and even if the virtual count is separate they will still do this. The point of geocaching (virtual included) is to go out and visit some location and find something there. It is not about sitting at home learning about something so you can answer questions.

 

This is one issue I have with EarthCaches. Many can be done without visiting. And when some owners required pictures to prove you were at the site, the guidelines for EarthCache were changed to not allow this. If EarthCaches are not causing a problem with couch potato logs, I would like to know why.

 

OK, so now the question is: if Attend logs on Events didn't count, would people still attended event?

 

Obviously, events are a completely different beast. Infact, didn't Groundspeak change something about how events are logged and some cachers got all up in arms about it?

 

EarthCaches are a funny thing too.

I don't own an EarthCache, mainly because they are a PIA to create. Of the two or three CO that own EarthCaches, they all say that "90%" of the people that log finds, haven't sent them the proper verification information or completed all of the requirements. When asked why they allow the logs, they basically state that the finder did visit the site, so what's the point.

 

So, the second reason why I haven't placed an EC, is that I don't want to play cache-cop.

 

Back to the Virtually, finding a Virtual, wasn't there a couple of VC that were riddles, if you could figure out the riddle, the CO would let you log it on-line. This was very early on, and I think I might have even logged it as there was an interesting novelty to it.

 

Either way, I still believe it all comes down to the logbook and signing it. The rule about trading fairly is there, but if you choose to trade nothing, then the rule kind of negates itself. The rule about sharing your experience on Geocaching.com, is OK too, but if you don't do this, then bragging about your find count is kind of a moot point. Heck, even signing the logbook is pointless. There's a cacher in my area that doesn't sign the logbook and doesn't log on-line, yet, he still searches for caches and attends events. He figures, he see the cache and can sign the log if so desired, but why go through the motions. Somehow it seems that he's really getting the most out of the game. I admire this in a strange way.

[cezanne]

 

I really think the problem here is that the users are saying one thing, but they really want something else. If cacher really want to to visit interesting locations, Challenges and Waymarks would be fine. I use Waymarks all the time to check out an unfamiliar area to see if there is anything interesting around. It's obvious that most player want a quick smilie to +1 their find count. And that's fine and dandy too. But, that would really cheapen the experience of what Virtual cacher are, and why they are so appealing now.

 

What you write does not apply to me. I want exactly what I write about. I'm in favor of not counting containerless caches as finds/hides together with caches with containers, but neither challenges nor waymarks offer me what I'm looking for. This might also be related to the fact that unlike you my main focus is on areas that are familiar to me. I'm interested into details and specialized information and not typical tourist places.

 

Cezanne

[+nthacker66]

"Really, the only rule to Geocaching is sign the log. "

 

So does this "rule" also apply to those who "leap frog" cache? Does it apply to those groups who go do a cache such as a tree climb and only one person actually gets to the log while everyone on the ground looks down?

 

These "rules" seem to comply only when it suits the argument. Being that the "rules" were changed for virtuals because "there were no logs to sign and no containers" when the reality was, reviewers didn't like the nastygrams.

 

Let's not cite rules, when the rules as they are, are very loosely followed as it is right now.

Edited December 20, 2012 by nthacker66

[+releasethedogs]

I just figured he was going by the donuts in your avatar's hands?

I was going by what was posted in his profile. If he is currently a educator, it is curious as why he says he is in law enforcement.

 

The reason why a rotting deer wont work as a lesson because that deer is not historical. Yes, in general they were important to native peoples of North America but not that specific deer. Not to mention that deer is not permanent or semi-permanent.

 

Still if you are willing to prove me wrong id love to see a lesson plan including how it fits into the national education standards as well as state of Florida's educational standards.

I had assumed someone in the education field would comprehend that a person can wear many hats. Obviously, my assumption was in error, and I cry your pardon. I am in law enforcement. I have been some flavor of LEO since 1982. I also teach. Would I call myself an educator? Probably not, as that is not the primary source of my income, and, my teaching is almost all law enforcement related.

 

I hope that clears things up for you.

 

Back to the historical value of the rotting deer carcass...

Putrifying Bambi

A virtual cache by BillyBobNosePicker

 

Back in 1841, BillyBobNosePicker's great, great, etc uncle Bubba NosePicker was the first practicing shaman in Volusia County Florida. Following a bitter, 45 year long feud betwixt neighbors, the NosePickers and the Flaglers, (which incidentally ended up defining the border between Volusia and Flagler County), Uncle Bubba was arrested for witchcraft and, without so much as a trial, he was hung at this spot. As he expired, Uncle Bubba released his death curse on the angry mob which strung him up, but as he was not a very good shaman, his curse missed the mark, targeting the innocent forest dwellers instead.

 

On the 13th day of each month, an animal inexplicably perishes at this exact spot. Because these animals died from dark magics, their remains do not get consumed by scavengers, and instead, the carcass will remain until it completely rots away. The Wiccan Council from the nearby Spiritualist town of Cassadaga verified the tenacity of the spell cast by Uncle Bubba, confirming that creatures killed by such means tend to repel living animals.

 

The University of Central Florida, and Seminole State College have teamed up in an attempt to debunk this bit of historical curiosity, (cited in the book Weird Feuds), but to date, have not come up with a rational explanation. One archeological dig conducted at the site revealed various animal bones going back well over two hundred years, concentrated in a very dense area, comparing the density of the bones to the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angelas California.

 

At the land owner's request, digging is no longer permitted on this site, and all traces of that dig have been purged in an attempt to preserve the history of witchcraft in Central Florida for future generations.

 

Come visit the site, and see if you can feel the residual thaumaturgic energies left over from so many deaths.

 

To claim this find, describe, as best you can, what kind of critter is currently decomposing here.

 

So, maybe a rotting deer carcass could have significant historical value...

Wow! Fiction sure can be fun. What is described here is a fictional back story to base this cache on. I searched several news paper article archives and nothing was found to show this is in fact a true story. It is a complete fabrication at worse and a Urban Legend at best. While I will give it to you that Urban Legends are fun to think about. They are not educational, just like this cache.

 

Rotting animals are not educational.

[+k3iv]

It's clear that many geocachers find enjoyment and value in the currently-published virtual caches.

 

The discussion about bringing back virtual caches has gone on for years and possibly will continue to go on for years.

 

In the meantime, I'd like to see some relaxation of the current rules to allow the perpetuation of existing virtuals. I would particularly like to see a procedure put in place to enable the adoption of abandoned virtuals. I'd also like to see the procedure extend to allow the unarchiving of virtuals that had been archived as abandoned if there now is someone willing to take responsibility for them.