Criteria for Being a New Virtual CO

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

On 4/17/2018 at 6:57 AM, barefootjeff said:

One of the more popular new virtuals in this neck of the woods, currently with 56% FPs, also gets some DNFs since it's only accessible for an hour or so either side of low tide and if the seas are fairly calm (this is spelt out in big letters in the description). People either don't check the tides or underestimate the size of the waves and so end up logging a DNF, which I'm sure the CHS wouldn't like.

So, sure, include all of the discussions about the mysterious CHS algorithm that we've had over the last few months.

My original point still stands.   I'd be interested in knowing if the "new virtuals" are widely seen as being of "good quality", in comparison with the surviving "old virtuals".

I already answered that if you scroll up a bit, but to summarise, all five of the new virtuals I've gone so far have been of good quality and were enjoyable, with a couple of memorable ones in particular. I've only done one old virtual so I can't really make a comparison.

[+coachstahly]

On 4/20/2018 at 11:51 AM, Team Hugs said:

So, sure, include all of the discussions about the mysterious CHS algorithm that we've had over the last few months.

My original point still stands.   I'd be interested in knowing if the "new virtuals" are widely seen as being of "good quality", in comparison with the surviving "old virtuals".

(And, no I don't have the time to do the work.   Day job is killing me.)

I've found quite a few old virtuals and wouldn't really consider all of them "good quality".  Many have been but some have been just, well, there.  They weren't good but they weren't horrible either.  I've only found a few of the new ones and they're certainly similar in scope to what I've found with the old ones.  One was pretty neat (although I really liked the multi that used to be there), one was an OK experience and one that I couldn't look for due to ice and snow covering the ground was just OK, based on what it was described to be. It had more sentimental value for the CO than I think for subsequent seekers.  That's an extremely limited sample size, so take it for what it's worth - not much.

[+GeoElmo6000]

Is there a way to find out if all the new virtuals have been published?  Is there a list of the new virtuals?

[+thebruce0]

27 minutes ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

Is there a way to find out if all the new virtuals have been published?  Is there a list of the new virtuals?

You could use the advanced search worldwide for Virtuals and sort by placed date, going back to the date they were awarded. That'd be the quickest way to get the full list, unless someone is keeping an updated bookmark list of all new virtuals (I'm sure someone is!)

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Just now, thebruce0 said:

You could use the advanced search worldwide for Virtuals and sort by placed date, going back to the date they were awarded. That'd be the quickest way to get the full list, unless someone is keeping an updated bookmark list of all new virtuals (I'm sure someone is!)

I did that last year and could see the cut-off date.  However, I just did a global search then selected "Virtual" for the cache type.  That "returned" 5959 results.  Then I clicked on the "Placed Date" column header then scrolled, and scrolled, and eventually got a "We only show 1,000 geocaches at a time. Try changing your search filters." message before I got to the first "new" Virtual.  Selecting the checkbox at the top will only add 1000 results to a list.  The limit on the number of caches in a pocket query is 1000 as well.  A pocket query also has a radius limit otherwise one could create multiple pocket queries with different "date placed" ranges.  

[+thebruce0]

Sort from newest to oldest. Far fewer than 1000 new virtuals

[+K13]

4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Sort from newest to oldest. Far fewer than 1000 new virtuals

When I did that, I only got back to Aug. 24, 2017, and my page had around 150 placed on that date.

based on my quick look, I'll say there are quite a bit more that 1000 new virtuals.

[+thebruce0]

6 minutes ago, K13 said:

based on my quick look, I'll say there are quite a bit more that 1000 new virtuals.

That's..odd. How is that possible?

 

ETA: D'OH!  Sorry, I forgot 4000 were given out, not 1000. My bad.

Edited May 3, 2018 by thebruce0

[+J Grouchy]

I can't remember...did they say how many there would be total?

It definitely goes beyond 1000.

 

[+J Grouchy]

2 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

I can't remember...did they say how many there would be total?

It definitely goes beyond 1000.

 

Oh...I see now...it's up to a maximum of 4000.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2018 by J Grouchy

[+K13]

12 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

That's..odd. How is that possible?

Here are links to a couple bookmarks. I have logged two near me that aren't on these lists.

New Virtual Caches List!! (1st 1,000) (shared, public)

New Virtual Caches List!! (2nd 1,000) (shared, public)

[+L0ne.R]

Project-GC lists 1401 globally.  Here's a link to Map Compare. It's up from 1344 when I posted this link on April 20th.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Sort from newest to oldest. Far fewer than 1000 new virtuals

I tried sorting in both directions.  Both times I got the "We only show 1000 results" that JGrouchy showed in the screen shot.  

[+thebruce0]

My comment was edited moments after I posted it and tried myself

[Moun10Bike]

There have been 1413 of the new virtuals published so far, with 6 having been archived. 4000 total were awarded.

[+GeoElmo6000]

6 minutes ago, Moun10Bike said:

There have been 1413 of the new virtuals published so far, with 6 having been archived. 4000 total were awarded.

Thank you Moun10Bike for the information.  For some reason I thought they had all published, but it's interesting to know that less than half have so far.  I look forward to seeing what people decide to assign their virtual caches to.

That's too bad that 6 were archived already.

[Moun10Bike]

We sent out a reminder email 6 months after the release date to those people who hadn't had theirs publish yet, and that resulted in a bit of a spike. I think the plan is to do that again at least once more before the 1-year time frame is up. Hopefully warmer weather in the northern hemisphere will result in more publishing in upcoming months.

[+Clongo_Rongo]

5 minutes ago, Moun10Bike said:

There have been 1413 of the new virtuals published so far, with 6 having been archived. 4000 total were awarded.

to me this is not very many published, from the little knowledge of this, I know that a lot have been awarded to CO's no longer in this hobby and the community has keep the health of the caches going.

Also I have seen some have been published only to see the stats show again they are not active but have placed one because they can?

Hopefully this issue will be reviewed and given to active co's who have worked hard in placing caches to be found and maintained.

one example I would like to mention I know of a cache that has had 8 dnf's by the same person on the same day, but found the next day, this must effect the CHS.

so I think if the new criteria was used to only included active CO's this may be more useful 

 

 

 

 

[Moun10Bike]

We only included active COs. Active meant that they had recently used the web or API, though, not that they recently had a find, as we didn't want to eliminate accounts used only for hiding.

In order to be eligible, a CO had to have at least 3 active non-event caches that were in decent shape. Various factors were used to determine the quality of those hides.

[+niraD]

11 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

Hopefully this issue will be reviewed and given to active co's who have worked hard in placing caches to be found and maintained.

Yeah, there's no way that would create any drama...

[+K13]

1 hour ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

to me this is not very many published, from the little knowledge of this, I know that a lot have been awarded to CO's no longer in this hobby and the community has keep the health of the caches going.

Also I have seen some have been published only to see the stats show again they are not active but have placed one because they can?

Hopefully this issue will be reviewed and given to active co's who have worked hard in placing caches to be found and maintained.

one example I would like to mention I know of a cache that has had 8 dnf's by the same person on the same day, but found the next day, this must effect the CHS.

so I think if the new criteria was used to only included active CO's this may be more useful 

 

 

 

 

I hope that none of the rewards are given to others. Too much unwarranted grief from the first round.

[+The Magna Defender]

1 hour ago, Moun10Bike said:

There have been 1413 of the new virtuals published so far, with 6 having been archived. 4000 total were awarded.

6 archived already? They were probably part time cachers who had no idea what they were doing as they are no longer participating in the community or the caching. Waste of virtuals when there are worthy people out there who wouldn't squander the opportunity. 

[+The Magna Defender]

17 minutes ago, K13 said:

I hope that none of the rewards are given to others. Too much unwarranted grief from the first round.

Why not, there are more deserving hiders who have amassed thousands of favorite points over years of hiding and have arranged events in their local community. 

Just because a hider has many hundreds of hides doesn't mean they are a power trail hider. I have many on hills, ones in tunnels and have hidden ammo boxes at considerable expense. In the eyes of the algorithm I'm a power trail hider apparently not worthy of a virtual. 

[+K13]

3 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

6 archived already? They were probably part time cachers who had no idea what they were doing as they are no longer participating in the community or the caching. Waste of virtuals when there are worthy people out there who wouldn't squander the opportunity. 

As has been stated numerous times, even just a few posts earlier, those who were given the reward were active cachers worthy of the reward.  Your angst over not getting one and numerous comments in the forums from many other cachers complaining is exactly my point.  Those who received a virtual reward may not want to have to deal with the negativity from their local community and chose not to place theirs, or they are still working on the best place in their area for the virtual.

(full disclosure: I am part of a group account comprised of 4 members which was 4 months old with no finds & a few hides when the virtuals were rewarded. Our group account received a reward virtual.  One of the members of our group with about 6,000 finds and almost 40 hides at the time also received one.)

[+noncentric]

7 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

to me this is not very many published, from the little knowledge of this, I know that a lot have been awarded to CO's no longer in this hobby and the community has keep the health of the caches going.

Considering the complaints and scrutiny that Virtual Reward recipients received, I don't think it's surprising that the majority of rewards have not been published.  Every new Virtual Reward cache that is published exposes the CO to scrutiny from other cachers, who then ask "Why did so-and-so get a Virtual Reward? They don't deserve one OR My hides are better than their hides."  Also, no consideration that some of those Virtual CO's received their reward because they are volunteers, so evaluating them based on their hides is not valid. There are over 420 volunteers out in the world.

People that want to see more Virtual caches published, but expressed outrage when the algorithm choices didn't align with their beliefs, have shot themselves in the foot by complaining about those that did receive the Virtual Rewards.

 

2 hours ago, K13 said:

Those who received a virtual reward may not want to have to deal with the negativity from their local community and chose not to place theirs, or they are still working on the best place in their area for the virtual.

^ Exactly!

[+fizzymagic]

1 hour ago, noncentric said:

People that want to see more Virtual caches published, but expressed outrage when the algorithm choices didn't align with their beliefs, have shot themselves in the foot by complaining about those that did receive the Virtual Rewards.

Yes indeed.

OTOH, I have noticed that the people in this thread with their knickers in a twist over not getting a Virtual Reward tend to be associated with a lot of other drama in their geocaching lives.  Maybe that should be a consideration in handing out these kinds of things:  the cachers chosen to place them have a history of good relationships with other cachers and a lack of complaining to TPTB about their interactions with reviewers.

In placing my VR, my first concept, which I spent a fair amount of time on, was rejected as unsuitable.  I did appeal it, but in what I think was a very reasonable and polite way.  The initial judgment was upheld, so I spent another couple of months coming up with something else.  It seems to have worked out very nicely so far.

If I were TPTB, I would try to give VRs to people who would not cause the reviewers angst.

[+AnnaMoritz]

I really can understand all the owners who don't use their Reward Virtual seeing all the ugly allegations and insults. Not every hider has a skin thick enough for this. A pity and lot of wasted opportunites.

Just looked for the already archived Reward Virtuals, whether they were 'recklessly' archived

Reasons for archiving by owner:

• 'Geocachers caused troubles'
• 'Cheaters kill geocaching'
• archived because geocache was too often logged without bothering to fulfil the requirements
• 'Second thought about safety'
• a japanese one without visible explanation

Reasons for archiving by reviewer:

• T5 tree climbing archived after 4 weeks as 'no longer guideline-compliant' by same reviewer who published it.

 

 

 

 

[+terratin]

13 hours ago, noncentric said:

Considering the complaints and scrutiny that Virtual Reward recipients received, I don't think it's surprising that the majority of rewards have not been published.  Every new Virtual Reward cache that is published exposes the CO to scrutiny from other cachers, who then ask "Why did so-and-so get a Virtual Reward? They don't deserve one OR My hides are better than their hides."  Also, no consideration that some of those Virtual CO's received their reward because they are volunteers, so evaluating them based on their hides is not valid. There are over 420 volunteers out in the world.

People that want to see more Virtual caches published, but expressed outrage when the algorithm choices didn't align with their beliefs, have shot themselves in the foot by complaining about those that did receive the Virtual Rewards.

 

^ Exactly!

This! *steps into dragon den* I received one for whatever reason and at first thought: oh s***! I don’t want one. But fortunately I’m in very friendly community. Then the pressure of finding an idea that adheres to the rules and that could not be done with a container or EC. Oh, and lots of maintenance in the form of masses of logs and messages. I’d seriously considered letting it expire - until I found THE idea. Which I admit is a bit sneaky as people have to work for it.

[+Rapaladude]

I think it was done fairly randomly. 

 

Theres someone in my area that’s been caching for less than 2 years and only has 30 finds or so, that hid a Virtual recently. Why they would give someone that has a very high chance of never logging back in, a virtual that will likely be archived eventually anyway, is beyond me.

 

It seems like all of my caching friends got one, except me, as well. 

 

Very disappointing considering I've always wanted to own a virtual cache... and I have the exact spot picked out in case I ever do.

 

They need to just bring them back already. They’re obviously wanted by most cachers.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Rapaladude

[+Clongo_Rongo]

https://coord.info/GC7B8DQ

 

is it this correct the co has 8 hides and 4 archived, but has one ?

https://project-gc.com/ProfileStats/pinkpigredrat#Hides

 

 

[+TriciaG]

6 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

https://coord.info/GC7B8DQ

 

is it this correct the co has 8 hides and 4 archived, but has one ?

https://project-gc.com/ProfileStats/pinkpigredrat#Hides

 

 

It could be the player account for a volunteer reviewer. Let it go.

[+AnnaMoritz]

Yes, why not an owner with 'only' a few hides?  There was an explanation also here in the forums what the algorithm did to rate "quality over quantity". Three then active geocaches could have had an average favorite point ratio above the threshold for this country. If this account isn't the player account of a volunteer anyway.

 

It seems easier for owners with a small/moderate number of owned active geocaches to get a high average percentage of favorite points. In my country about 50 active geocaches seems to be the most for a Virtual Reward so far, not a few are for owners with 3-5 active geocaches.

[+TriciaG]

21 minutes ago, AnnaMoritz said:

Yes, why not an owner with 'only' a few hides?  There was an explanation also here in the forums what the algorithm did to rate "quality over quantity". Three then active geocaches could have had an average favorite point ratio above the threshold for this country. If this account isn't the player account of a volunteer anyway.

 

It seems easier for owners with a small/moderate number of owned active geocaches to get a high average percentage of favorite points. In my country about 50 active geocaches seems to be the most for a Virtual Reward so far, not a few are for owners with 3-5 active geocaches.

I took a closer look at the account. Not only does what Anna say here pertain, but all the archived caches were well-maintained by the CO. None of them were archived by a reviewer, but were responsibly archived by the CO. Looks like a great candidate for the virtual reward.

[+The Magna Defender]

2 hours ago, TriciaG said:

I took a closer look at the account. Not only does what Anna say here pertain, but all the archived caches were well-maintained by the CO. None of them were archived by a reviewer, but were responsibly archived by the CO. Looks like a great candidate for the virtual reward.

Yes it takes real effort to just archive a cache as soon it needs maintaining. It's a bit of a kick to the teeth of cache owners who have maintained caches for over ten years. 

 

As usual with the virtual it's a poor example again, with it being a multi stage one just to look at a services tower from varying angles. This is Lancashires only new virtual. I'm proud. 

 

I don't understand why all the new virtuals seem to be long and complicated with numerous stages. Whatever happened to a single photo virtual ? 

[+TriciaG]

Quote

Yes it takes real effort to just archive a cache as soon it needs maintaining. It's a bit of a kick to the teeth of cache owners who have maintained caches for over ten years. 

Someone needs to get over their bitterness at not being one of the virtual cache awardees.

[+niraD]

29 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

I don't understand why all the new virtuals seem to be long and complicated with numerous stages. Whatever happened to a single photo virtual ? 

How many people would create a simple "single photo virtual" if they had only a single opportunity to EVER create a virtual cache?

[+bflentje]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

How many people would create a simple "single photo virtual" if they had only a single opportunity to EVER create a virtual cache?

 

My friend, former purist and regular of these forums, knowschad..

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC7B6J3_rockin-the-house

[Blue Square Thing]

7 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

I don't understand why all the new virtuals seem to be long and complicated with numerous stages. Whatever happened to a single photo virtual ? 

 

There are plenty of them. I've done three of them this month already. They have a place, but so do the multiple stage ones and, if anything, it's possible to argue that some of the single photo ones are a teensy weensy bit boring in some ways - it's more interesting when there's a variety I think. My favourite recently was https://coord.info/GC7B9ND which is simple but interesting and requires just a touch of effort.

 

I'm also pleased to see some that require a tonne of effort.

[+Team Microdot]

11 hours ago, TriciaG said:

I took a closer look at the account. Not only does what Anna say here pertain, but all the archived caches were well-maintained by the CO. None of them were archived by a reviewer, but were responsibly archived by the CO. Looks like a great candidate for the virtual reward.

 

The subject of this virtual is a unique example of British architecture situated on the first stretch of motorway to be built in this country - fairly significant in modern historical terms.

 

In fact Historic England considered the building important enough to warrant Grade II listed status - awarded to buildings that are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them.

 

Lots of interesting information can be found at https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1404607

 

I'd say that's worthy subject material for a virtual, personally.

 

I'd also wager that given the amount of time between new virtuals being awarded and this one only being published at the end of July this year, the CO's put some thought and effort into choosing the subject of their virtual.

 

No amount of sour grapes can change that.

 

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

13 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

https://coord.info/GC7B8DQ

 

is it this correct the co has 8 hides and 4 archived, but has one ?

https://project-gc.com/ProfileStats/pinkpigredrat#Hides

 

 

 

In May a Groundspeak lackey told you:

 

On 03/05/2018 at 9:07 PM, Moun10Bike said:

In order to be eligible, a CO had to have at least 3 active non-event caches that were in decent shape. Various factors were used to determine the quality of those hides.

 

There's your answer

[+LFC4eva]

11 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

As usual with the virtual it's a poor example again, with it being a multi stage one just to look at a services tower from varying angles. This is Lancashires only new virtual. I'm proud. 

I don't understand why all the new virtuals seem to be long and complicated with numerous stages. Whatever happened to a single photo virtual ? 

I suspect that is one of the reasons why virtuals were phased out in the first place.. once quality goes out of the window  *oh look there is a statue of someone - go and visit it and take a photo of you and your GPS* with little or no thought into making the visit / cache page interesting.. they become nothing more than a smiley for the sake of a smiley.

I haven't done many Virtuals.. but my favourite would have to be the one I did for my 5000th milestone cache.. https://coord.info/GLQPKW5P   not long and complicated with numerous stages, but something which involved a nice and interesting walk of around a mile between the two stages.

My 2nd favourite would be this one https://coord.info/GL6952TK  which could come under your *single photo virtual* criteria.. but it took around 8 hours to get there and back.. and considerably more effort than the new two stage Virtual you consider a poor example simply because it has two stages which are 4 minutes walk apart.

[+barefootjeff]

11 hours ago, niraD said:

12 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

I don't understand why all the new virtuals seem to be long and complicated with numerous stages. Whatever happened to a single photo virtual ? 

How many people would create a simple "single photo virtual" if they had only a single opportunity to EVER create a virtual cache?

 

Three of the six new virtuals I've done have been single photo ones, the others having questions to answer instead of or in addition to one or more photos. One of the single photo ones, at the Figure Eight Pools south of Sydney, had an interesting twist - you have to get in the pool for the photo. There's been a good variety of them here and I've enjoyed all the ones I've done, but I'm glad I didn't get selected for one as I'm sure I wouldn't enjoy having to deal with people who can't follow the simplest of logging tasks.

[+BugLuv]

Being new to the game, I missed the roll out of the virtual. I wouldn’t have known the history except for this forum. I love the virtual caches when traveling to new cities. They’re really fun and can introduce a new area or historical/ local facts. I can’t wait to do more as I ramble around.

[+pinkpigredrat]

It's not my usual style to post on message boards, and I'm certainly not one to be getting into heated discussions with people.

 

So to that end I will say thank you to those of you who have said something nice about the situation and I will try and take onboard any useful advice, either to edit the current cache page or for when I next create a (non-virtual) cache.

 

There certainly is a bit of pressure to place something when you only have one chance and you know so many others will be disappointed to have not been awarded one (I certainly was surprised but very excited to have one myself)

 

Groundspeak need to do things periodically to keep the interest in the game and I guess this virtual reward idea was one of them. Some ideas work and some probably don't so much. I hope there is a new reward of some description soon and that as many of you who have been disappointed by this one benefit from that in some way.

 

(I will now return to my usual non involvement in message boards!)

 

All the best,

pinkpigredrat

[+Team Microdot]

17 hours ago, TriciaG said:

I took a closer look at the account. Not only does what Anna say here pertain, but all the archived caches were well-maintained by the CO. None of them were archived by a reviewer, but were responsibly archived by the CO. Looks like a great candidate for the virtual reward.

 

Now this one is a bit different - https://coord.info/GC7B8KN

 

The irony here is that the CO had a traditional cache here previously - with almost exactly the same name - and that was archived by a volunteer reviewer after a spell of DNF's and ignored NM.

 

For me that's something of a failing in the selection process for sure.

 

 

[+The Magna Defender]

6 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Now this one is a bit different - https://coord.info/GC7B8KN

 

The irony here is that the CO had a traditional cache here previously - with almost exactly the same name - and that was archived by a volunteer reviewer after a spell of DNF's and ignored NM.

 

For me that's something of a failing in the selection process for sure.

 

 

To that example.... I agree with mr microdot. Most caches by that CO have been archived. Absolutely disgusting. A kick to the teeth of worthy COs. 

[+The Magna Defender]

14 hours ago, Blue Square Thing said:

 

There are plenty of them. I've done three of them this month already. They have a place, but so do the multiple stage ones and, if anything, it's possible to argue that some of the single photo ones are a teensy weensy bit boring in some ways - it's more interesting when there's a variety I think. My favourite recently was https://coord.info/GC7B9ND which is simple but interesting and requires just a touch of effort.

 

I'm also pleased to see some that require a tonne of effort.

The ones I have seen locally to northwest England and Yorkshire are all unnecessarily complicated ones where you either have to drive round numerous stages for miles or walk round posh houses or buildings which are only open during certain hours. 

 

Surely the idea of a virtual was to put them at places a container wouldn't last, such as a hard to get to island or a summit where a container isn't possible... But no they'd rather waste their virtual cache on a fancy building where a multi would have been more appropriate.

[+Team Microdot]

13 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

6 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Now this one is a bit different - https://coord.info/GC7B8KN

 

The irony here is that the CO had a traditional cache here previously - with almost exactly the same name - and that was archived by a volunteer reviewer after a spell of DNF's and ignored NM.

 

For me that's something of a failing in the selection process for sure.

 

 

To that example.... I agree with mr microdot. Most caches by that CO have been archived. Absolutely disgusting. A kick to the teeth of worthy COs.

 

Just in case anyone misunderstands The Magna Defender's post here, the opinion that he's expressed, that this situation is absolutely disgusting and a kick to the teeth of worthy COs his, his alone and not one I share.

 

I wouldn't want to be incriminated by association.

 

My purpose above was to provide a real example which contradicts what we've been told about the selection criteria.

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

Absolutely disgusting. A kick to the teeth of worthy COs. 

That explains my confusion at the last Geocaching event I attended. I thought I had stumbled into a gathering of hockey players.

 

Oh, wait, that never happened. Never mind.

 

 

7 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

The ones I have seen locally to northwest England and Yorkshire are all unnecessarily complicated ones where you either have to drive round numerous stages for miles or walk round posh houses or buildings which are only open during certain hours. 

Sounds like fun to me. I'd love to see more caches (virtual or otherwise) that require a significant amount of time to complete.

 

7 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

Surely the idea of a virtual was to put them at places a container wouldn't last

In this case, I think the idea was more to see what people would do with virtual caches. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the Virtual Rewards guidelines that suggests anything about locations where a container wouldn't last.

Edited August 7, 2018 by niraD
typo

[Blue Square Thing]

8 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

The ones I have seen locally to northwest England and Yorkshire are all unnecessarily complicated ones where you either have to drive round numerous stages for miles or walk round posh houses or buildings which are only open during certain hours. 

 

Surely the idea of a virtual was to put them at places a container wouldn't last, such as a hard to get to island or a summit where a container isn't possible... But no they'd rather waste their virtual cache on a fancy building where a multi would have been more appropriate.

 

I've not looked up in the northwest as it's just too far for me to get to easily enough. Down in the east and south-east I'd suggest things are, perhaps, a bit different perhaps - although I'm sure there are exceptions. The one in Cambridge is dead simple as, I think, are the three close to that to the north(ish) - the bridge one, the one at Sandringham and the one in the fens. The one in Norwich is a short multi-stage but genuinely (for me at least) interesting - but then I think looking up in cities is underrated. All the ones in London are pretty much single photo ones I think, perhaps with a little info to gather at times - not sure about the PMO one - as are the two in Essex.

 

I think there's a balance that can be had between hideously complicated for the sake of it - and I wouldn't necessarily entirely disagree with your characterisation of the one you quoted - and interestingly complicated. Quite how you get that balance is an interesting question.

 

The same thing applies to the point of a virtual. I get your point entirely, although I think that a case can be made for using a virtual to tell a really interesting story where a multi wouldn't work - the Norwich example, certainly the van Gogh one I quoted previously. I' about to visit Copenhagen where a bunch have appeared. One is at the Little Mermaid which has a trad very close by as well - I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that, but I can see that the mermaid itself is a place that would be very unlikely to sustain a cache for that long.

 

It's a real balancing act for sure.