Jump to content

New locationless cache ?


Arne1
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

I'm the owner of the cache in question. It's not "locationless" as the region "Weinviertel" is defined quite precisely, and there is a very limited list of possible places. Besides, it was reviewed extensively and deemed ok. But if Groundspeak insists I'll add those places as Virtual Stages.

 

@Arne1:  Why not contact me in person if you have a question/concern about my cache?

Edited by pri0n
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

Well on your virtual the posted coordinates don't change, but the location and number of loggable entities certainly does. 

Hmm, the location of those few loggable entities hasn't changed in a few hundred years, and its number will change only if new ones are discovered which isn't very likely.

Link to comment

From the Virtual Reward Guidance :

 

Quote

Acceptable logging tasks:

  • Questions that can only be answered by visiting the location.

It sounds like from your "Logging Conditions" in step 1 and 2, that I would not be able to fulfill the logging requirements by merely visiting the posted coordinates at the top of the page.  This appears to be a fundamental requirement of the Virtual Reward.  Anything unrelated to what I find at the posted coordinates I would assume as optional in nature.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Well, let's have a look at the listing then:

Quote

Die Headerkoordinaten zeigen auf den Schüttkasten von Klement, der sich einerseits gleich neben einer Hausberganlage befindet...

Quote

The coordinates point to the "Schüttkasten" in Klement, located directly beside a "Hausberganlage"...

so if you just visit the Hausberganlage at the header you're fine

Edited by pri0n
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

There are other virtual rewards for example https://coord.info/GC7B78E where logging requirements are not fulfilled at posted coordinates. Creating this kind of inventive virtual needs in-depth discussion with local reviewer. So many virtuals get refused by some minor and meaningless problems that this kind of virtuals have been thoroughly studied before publishing.

Yet mine can be fulfilled at the posted coordinates...

Link to comment
2 hours ago, pri0n said:

Yet mine can be fulfilled at the posted coordinates...

I might be wrong but I thought a virtual must be completed at the posted coordinates.

What if I had a virtual like this: "The posted coordinates are for a mountain summit.  Post a picture of yourself on a mountain summit somewhere in Area X."  The number of mountains in Area X is finite, but there are potentially dozens or hundreds of unique loggable options.  Sounds like a locationless cache, no?

If instead it said: "The posted coordinates are for a mountain summit.  Post a picture of yourself at this summit."  That sounds more like a virtual to me.  

But I'm no reviewer or guideline expert.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

I might be wrong but I thought a virtual must be completed at the posted coordinates.

There is no such guideline. If so, you could find it in the following citation.

I am sorry for them, who did not read these instructions before preparing their own virtual reward and possibly made wrong assumptions about available options.

--

The purpose of the required logging task is to show that the geocacher was at the location. Anything other than that should be optional.

Acceptable logging tasks:

  • Questions that can only be answered by visiting the location.
  • Tasks for the finder to fulfill at the location (for example, find five statues on the buildings around you and post the picture of the tallest one with your log).
  • Photos of the location or a GPS device/smartphone at the location.
  • Photos of geocacher at the location, as long as a face is not required in the photo.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

I might be wrong but I thought a virtual must be completed at the posted coordinates.

Yes, you are wrong as the guidelines for the new virtual caches clearly allow virtual waypoints. I've seen dozens of new virtuals that are more like Multi-Caches pop up lately where you have to visit 10 or more stages. 

Quote

Waypoints

Virtual Caches can have additional virtual waypoints. Physical waypoints are not allowed. Learn more about waypoints.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, pri0n said:

Yes, you are wrong as the guidelines for the new virtual caches clearly allow virtual waypoints. I've seen dozens of new virtuals that are more like Multi-Caches pop up lately where you have to visit 10 or more stages. 

I don't see anything wrong with virtual waypoints on the cache page or virtuals with multiple pre-determined virtual stops.  

But when the stops are not necessarily predetermined and can change for each "found it" log, that's where I'm seeing it as a locationless cache.

20 minutes ago, arisoft said:

The purpose of the required logging task is to show that the geocacher was at the location. Anything other than that should be optional.

As bolded above, the guidelines say the location, not a qualifying location.  "The location" can only refer to the posted coordinates or pre-determined virtual waypoints. So I don't see how anything other than the posted coordinates or pre-determined virtual waypoints can be used to qualify for the cache?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

As bolded above, the guidelines say the location, not a qualifying location.  "The location" can only refer to the posted coordinates or pre-determined virtual waypoints. So I don't see how anything other than the posted coordinates or pre-determined virtual waypoints can be used to qualify for the cache?

Better you stick to what's written than trying to rewrite it in some other way or give new meaning to words.

The virtual reward example I have posted earlier to this thead defines "cache location" to be approximately 1.3 kilometers long. It is much more that normal GPS deviation from posted coordinates.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Better you stick to what's written than trying to rewrite it in some other way or give new meaning to words.

The virtual reward example I have posted earlier to this thead defines "cache location" to be approximately 1.3 kilometers long. It is much more that normal GPS deviation from posted coordinates.

The virtual you posted has a number of pre-determined virtual waypoints that everyone who completes the virtual must visit.  Everybody visits the same spots and provides more or less the same information to the owner.

The reason I see GC7B876 as locationless is because you can use any location in the area that fulfills the logging requirements.  In this case, everybody visits a different spot and provides different information to the owner.  New finders are even encouraged to visit places the old finders haven't used.  This sounds exactly like the old retired locationless cache type.

Edited by brendan714
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

The virtual you posted has a number of pre-determined virtual waypoints that everyone who completes the virtual must visit.  Everybody visits the same spots and provides more or less the same information to the owner.

The reason I see GC7B876 as locationless is because you can use any location in the area that fulfills the logging requirements.  In this case, everybody visits a different spot and provides different information to the owner.  New finders are even encouraged to visit places the old finders haven't used.  This sounds exactly like the old retired locationless cache type.

I came here to post almost exactly this, but you beat me to it.

Other than the different cache type and the ability to log the same location more than once, I see no difference between GC7B876 and the extinct Locationless cache type. If you can log it without going to GZ (or a spot within a reasonable distance of GZ, like somewhere within a town square), then it's effectively locationless.

I'd love to hear the opinion of the reviewers that frequent the forums. If such a Virtual came up for review in your area, would you publish it based on your knowledge of the guidelines and the guidance provided by HQ?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Better you stick to what's written than trying to rewrite it in some other way or give new meaning to words.

The virtual reward example I have posted earlier to this thead defines "cache location" to be approximately 1.3 kilometers long. It is much more that normal GPS deviation from posted coordinates.

As Brendan714 said, you must find three exact spots as specified in the travel instructions.  Thus, this cache is more like a traditional Letterbox, where the starting point is found by GPS, then you follow a well-defined path to certain locations.  The key here is that all the locations are well-defined. 

The cache that started this thread is much more vague as to where you must go.  It could be argued that, since you go to any one location from a long list of possible locations (found at the attached web address), that the cache is not really locationless.  This is probably how the cache gained its approval.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Were the CO to add every allowable location from which to log a find, then it would be more like a Virtual.

But by effectively saying "you find and choose an appropriate location" and you use an alternate location, you can log it found without visiting the posted coordinates. So yep, I too agree it is essentially a Locationless cache, not a proper Virtual.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
59 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Were the CO to add every allowable location from which to log a find, then it would be more like a Virtual.

But by effectively saying "you find and choose an appropriate location" and you use an alternate location, you can log it found without visiting the posted coordinates. So yep, I too agree it is essentially a Locationless cache, not a proper Virtual.

I agree, mostly.  I had the same reaction when I got the project-GC email for this one.

One difference between this and the old locationless, though, is that it's not required to find another location, and I suspect that is the key to why this was allowed..  As pri0n points out, all he is doing is allowing (and encouraging) cachers to find a different site than the one at the coordinates, but that's not required. Under the conditions of the cache, 100% of the logs could be done at the coordinates and they'd all be fine.  Whereas with a locationless cache, once a cacher had called dibs on a particular qualifying location, it would be off limits to all other logs.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

For sure, it's not exactly a locationless cache. Those don't exist any more :P. I think the question is where is the grey area? It's half Locationless (by the fact of being able to log by using a non-defined alternate location), and half Virtual (findable by using only the posted virtual coordinate as a task).  So... it's an interesting predicament.  It seems the reviewer felt it was sufficiently "Virtual" to be published as one.

ETA: Actually IIRC you could log a locationless from the posted coordinates if you wish, just like this cache.  Locationless was archived before I began caching in '09 though, so I could be wrong.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, egroeg said:

It could be argued that, since you go to any one location from a long list of possible locations (found at the attached web address), that the cache is not really locationless.  This is probably how the cache gained its approval.

I somewhat agree with you, but under that logic you could argue that a cache that says "take a photo in front of a McDonald's restaurant" is a virtual cache.  There is a finite number of McDonald's restaurants, and the location of all of them is probably listed somewhere.  That doesn't make it any less of a locationless geocache, in my opinion.  It sounds more like a Waymarking category.

I would still think that a virtual cache would highlight one specific location (or several specific locations, where information must be obtained from each).

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, hzoi said:

One difference between this and the old locationless, though, is that it's not required to find another location, and I suspect that is the key to why this was allowed..  As pri0n points out, all he is doing is allowing (and encouraging) cachers to find a different site than the one at the coordinates, but that's not required. Under the conditions of the cache, 100% of the logs could be done at the coordinates and they'd all be fine.  Whereas with a locationless cache, once a cacher had called dibs on a particular qualifying location, it would be off limits to all other logs.

Yes.  I enjoyed Locationless Caches.  They had you find something.  Anywhere in the world.  "Find a statue of a lion."  "Find a street sign with your name on it".  (Tough for my friend, Jesus.  Not a lot of street signs with that name on it.  We had to go to an old religious camp sixty miles away.  "Jesus' Gospel Way".)  And, yes.  Only one person could find any location.

So.  No.  We are not talking about Locationless Caches here.    OP is incorrect in his hypothesis.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Yes.  I enjoyed Locationless Caches.  They had you find something.  Anywhere in the world.  "Find a statue of a lion."  "Find a street sign with your name on it".  (Tough for my friend, Jesus.  Not a lot of street signs with that name on it.  We had to go to an old religious camp sixty miles away.  "Jesus' Gospel Way".)  And, yes.  Only one person could find any location.

So.  No.  We are not talking about Locationless Caches here.    OP is incorrect in his hypothesis.

 

Amen. :D

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Yes.  I enjoyed Locationless Caches.  They had you find something.  Anywhere in the world.  "Find a statue of a lion."  "Find a street sign with your name on it".  (Tough for my friend, Jesus.  Not a lot of street signs with that name on it.  We had to go to an old religious camp sixty miles away.  "Jesus' Gospel Way".)  And, yes.  Only one person could find any location.

So.  No.  We are not talking about Locationless Caches here.    OP is incorrect in his hypothesis.

Funny, then, how Groundspeak thought the Brass Cap cache (GC43F3) was locationless, as per the canned email many of us received when we voiced a complaint.

Brass Cap Cache: Visit one of the hundreds of pre-determined virtual waypoints and get information off of a survey marker.  Multiple logs on the same waypoint were okay, but only the listed waypoints were loggable.

GC7B876: Visit one of ??? non-pre-determined locations and get the required info.  Any location is loggable if the logging requirements are met.

If the Brass Cap Cache was considered locationless, GC7B876 definitely is.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, brendan714 said:

The virtual you posted has a number of pre-determined virtual waypoints that everyone who completes the virtual must visit.  Everybody visits the same spots and provides more or less the same information to the owner.

I can see only one waypoint in the description. Do you know where the other waypoints are? Remember that you thought a virtual must be completed at the posted coordinates. It does not work here this way. You use your GPS to find posted coordinates. Then something else happens without your GPS and you complete the task about 1.3km away at some other position. For me it is not relevant where the task is completed if it relates to the starting location.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I can see only one waypoint in the description. Do you know where the other waypoints are? Remember that you thought a virtual must be completed at the posted coordinates. It does not work here this way. You use your GPS to find posted coordinates. Then something else happens without your GPS and you complete the task about 1.3km away at some other position. For me it is not relevant where the task is completed if it relates to the starting location.

Click Here or Here and you will see the required tour. 

My opinion is that information for virtuals can only be taken from pre-determined points. That might include (but is not necessarily limited to) the posted coordinates and/or pre-determined virtual waypoints. I know I said 'posted coordinates only' above, but I really meant any pre-determined location. 

Again, saying "take a picture of yourself on this mountain summit" is very different from saying "take a picture of yourself on any mountain summit". One is a pre-determined location (virtual), the other is open-ended location (locationless). 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, brendan714 said:

Funny, then, how Groundspeak thought the Brass Cap cache (GC43F3) was locationless, as per the canned email many of us received when we voiced a complaint.

Brass Cap Cache: Visit one of the hundreds of pre-determined virtual waypoints and get information off of a survey marker.  Multiple logs on the same waypoint were okay, but only the listed waypoints were loggable.

GC7B876: Visit one of ??? non-pre-determined locations and get the required info.  Any location is loggable if the logging requirements are met.

If the Brass Cap Cache was considered locationless, GC7B876 definitely is.

The fact that some lackeys do not understand what locationless caches were (they were archived many years ago), does not change the definition.  Find one anywhere.  No two cachers can log the same location.  Brass Cap Cache was, in no way, a locationless cache.  Unfortunate that the lackey chose that wording.  Unfortunately, it was archived under the new guideline that a virtual must be at the given coordinates.  Which is the question that the OP brought up.  But it is completely unrelated to what locationless caches were.  "Find a Viquesney Doughboy statue.  Not logged by any other cacher."  That is what locationless caches were!   Under the locationless guidelines, a brass cap could only be logged once.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, brendan714 said:

Brass Cap Cache: Visit one of the hundreds of pre-determined virtual waypoints and get information off of a survey marker.  Multiple logs on the same waypoint were okay, but only the listed waypoints were loggable.

GC7B876: Visit one of ??? non-pre-determined locations and get the required info.  Any location is loggable if the logging requirements are met.

If the Brass Cap Cache was considered locationless, GC7B876 definitely is.

If your assumptions were correct it would be - but unfortunately they aren't.

The Brass Cap Cache was meant to be constantly moved around - mine isn't.

Cachers were actively encouraged to log it multiple times - mine can only be logged once.

Both have pre-determined locations. Maybe it's the different language that has kept you from doing the required research, but then you'd end up with just a select few possible locations, each with exact coordinates to enter into your GPSr - so no, not "any" location is loggable. As I said in my first post in this thread, I will gladly add those waypoints to the listing if Groundspeak asks me to do so.

I'm sorry for the Brass Cap Cache which sounded like an interesting project to do but I still see more differences between that cache and mine than there are similarities.

Edited by pri0n
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, pri0n said:

If your assumptions were correct it would be - but unfortunately they aren't.

I think that brendan714's is a fair comparison.  Using your logic, someone with a Virtual Reward should be able to resurrect  the brass cap locationless, using your idea as a model.  The only change would be to keep the Listing fixed at one location, and to limit logging it only once.  Even if someone were to go to the trouble of entering every single brass cap as an AW, I really don't think that would fly.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, brendan714 said:

My opinion is that information for virtuals can only be taken from pre-determined points. That might include (but is not necessarily limited to) the posted coordinates and/or pre-determined virtual waypoints. I know I said 'posted coordinates only' above, but I really meant any pre-determined location. 

From guidelines: "Tasks for the finder to fulfill at the location (for example, find five statues on the buildings around you and post the picture of the tallest one with your log)."

In this official example there is five pre-determined waypoints at the one location. There seems to be no limit how many waypoints are allowed, but you have to be on that location which is at posted coordinates. The size of the location is no specified. Location could be a building or a park for example.

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, pri0n said:

If your assumptions were correct it would be - but unfortunately they aren't.

 

4 hours ago, arisoft said:

There seems to be no limit how many waypoints are allowed, but you have to be on that location which is at posted coordinates. The size of the location is no specified. Location could be a building or a park for example.

If pri0n's virtual cache is really that much different than the brass cap cache, then following that logic it would be possible to make a ridiculous fictional virtual as follows: The posted coordinates are my house. The requirements are: (a) Find any house in the legal boundaries of this city and email the address numbers on the house and the name of the street it's on; (b) Post a picture of your GPSr next to the house you chose; (c) Try to choose a different house than everybody else. 

So every house in the city could be used to log the cache. You could get the coordinates for each of the thousands of houses and post them on the cache page if you really wanted to. Everyone's log info that they send to fulfill the requirements could be different so long as there are more houses than loggers. Or maybe everyone just uses my house at the posted coordinates and everyone's logging info is the same. 

If it is true that such a virtual cache is legal and publishable, then I stand 100% corrected and flabbergasted. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, brendan714 said:

If it is true that such a virtual cache is legal and publishable, then I stand 100% corrected and flabbergasted. 

You got my idea correctly. I had the same idea in my mind. It could be publishable and there is no need to list all possible street coordinates for that location, which is the city at ground zero. But - the reviewer may consider it different way if your story does not support the task you have planned.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, arisoft said:

From guidelines: "Tasks for the finder to fulfill at the location (for example, find five statues on the buildings around you and post the picture of the tallest one with your log)."

In this official example there is five pre-determined waypoints at the one location. There seems to be no limit how many waypoints are allowed, but you have to be on that location which is at posted coordinates. The size of the location is no specified. Location could be a building or a park for example.

 

Although not a virtual cache one of the most interesting earthcaches I've ever done required one to go to a non-predetermined location.  It is located on a barrier island in North Carolina and the posted coordinates take you to a large sand dune.  The geography lesson for the EC is to show how these sand dunes are constantly moving due to prevailing winds.  One of the tasks is to find the highest spot on the dune captured the coordinates then post he difference between that location and the coordinates in the previous finders log.  The beauty of the EC is that the task is an exercise that demonstrates the lesson.  As an added bonus,  it's at the highest point on the island and offers a great 360 degree view.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I've found this discussion interesting.   It is an interesting cache, and I'm all for interesting caches being published.

It is interesting in 2 ways:

1.  Whilst you can log it found by visiting the coordinates, there is no requirement to visit those coordinates.   (You do need to visit this district of Austria).

2.  You can log it as found by going to one of 497 different places (if I understand the weblink correctly).   

It is different from any Virtual I've seen.   And it can be done without GPS use.    Go to one of the places on the website... no need to navigate to any specific coordinates.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Yeah, very interesting discussion.  Unique requirements that definitely skirt the edge, at best, of the Locationless class of cache.

I think the thing that gets me is that visiting the posted coordinates is not required. If all possible locations were added as additional waypoints, one still would not have to visit the posted coordinates and perform a task. And I still figured that that is an essential element of the Virtual - mainly because that is the GPS-use requirement for the listing (same argument as with ECs).  It's still Virtual in that the posted coords don't change and you can only log it once, but the posted coords can be meaningless if you use an alternate coordinate.

I think Brendan's example of the house-logging task is an excellent one.  Whether it's really a Locationless style or not, it still seems to me to be counter to a core Virtual Cache setup. Obviously it ended up being a matter of reviewer interpretation and judgement since it was published.  It is a neat idea though.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, pri0n said:

No, you have to pick the "Hausberg" category which leaves you with ~70 possible places, then subtract all  those that are inaccessible or where there isn't anything to see any more (read the descriptions!). There you'll also find the GPS coordinates you need to navigate there (written in BMN, but I'll call that a D1.5 puzzle at best...)

Ok, sorry for my misunderstanding.

 

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

2.  You can log it as found by going to one of 497 different places (if I understand the weblink correctly).   

It is different from any Virtual I've seen.   And it can be done without GPS use.    Go to one of the places on the website... no need to navigate to any specific coordinates.

No, you have to pick the "Hausberg" category which leaves you with ~70 possible places, then subtract all those that are duplicates, that are inaccessible or where there isn't anything to see any more (read the descriptions!). There you'll also find the GPS coordinates you need to navigate there (written in BMN, but I'll call that a D1.5 puzzle at best...)

Edited by pri0n
Link to comment
1 hour ago, redsox_mark said:

I've found this discussion interesting.   It is an interesting cache, and I'm all for interesting caches being published.

It is interesting in 2 ways:

1.  Whilst you can log it found by visiting the coordinates, there is no requirement to visit those coordinates.   (You do need to visit this district of Austria).

2.  You can log it as found by going to one of 497 different places (if I understand the weblink correctly).   

It is different from any Virtual I've seen.   And it can be done without GPS use.    Go to one of the places on the website... no need to navigate to any specific coordinates.

It's exactly those 2 points where I still think the rules are bent.  What if the "location" is extended to all of Earth?  How can you log the same cache from different places?

"Take a photo of your GPSr with one of the 7 new Wonders of the World in the background."  So according to the rules and all the discussion here, this would be a valid new virtual cache that could be completed from 7 different corners of our planet.  I am astounded that such a cache would indeed follow the guidelines!

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

I am astounded that such a cache would indeed follow the guidelines!

At least I could be hard or expensive to follow. See this:

Quote

The cache owner must have visited the location and any additional waypoints in the previous two months before submitting the Virtual Cache for publication. Placements near the cache owner’s home coordinates are encouraged.

 

As you see, the idea of many waypoints is is deliberately written into guidelines.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, arisoft said:

The cache owner must have visited the location and any additional waypoints in the previous two months before submitting the Virtual Cache for publication. Placements near the cache owner’s home coordinates are encouraged.

As you see, the idea of many waypoints is is deliberately written into guidelines.

In that case, pri0n must have visited all ~70 possible places that his virtual cache could be logged from within the last 2 months.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

In that case, pri0n must have visited all ~70 possible places that his virtual cache could be logged from within the last 2 months.

Right! I am sure that the local reviewer has done a great job with this publication.

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment

 

17 minutes ago, brendan714 said:
21 minutes ago, arisoft said:

The cache owner must have visited the location and any additional waypoints in the previous two months before submitting the Virtual Cache for publication. Placements near the cache owner’s home coordinates are encouraged.

As you see, the idea of many waypoints is is deliberately written into guidelines.

In that case, pri0n must have visited all ~70 possible places that his virtual cache could be logged from within the last 2 months.

heh, but see, there's only one waypoint, at posted. So there ya go, loophole :P

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

1. Go to space.

2. Watch the entire Earth for a while so you can say you visited everywhere.

3. Make a new virtual "Take a picture of yourself on Earth."

4. Profit and build a mansion with all your FPs. :P

 

But seriously, it's going to take me a while to adjust to the "fact" that it is now possible in some cases for a single geocache to be loggable from multiple spots with different information.  If indeed true, I need to get to the drawing board on some new Earthcaches....!

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

It's exactly those 2 points where I still think the rules are bent.  What if the "location" is extended to all of Earth?  How can you log the same cache from different places?

"Take a photo of your GPSr with one of the 7 new Wonders of the World in the background."  So according to the rules and all the discussion here, this would be a valid new virtual cache that could be completed from 7 different corners of our planet.  I am astounded that such a cache would indeed follow the guidelines!

I would expect the reviewer took into account the relatively local nature of the cache in question.    Logging a cache listed in Brazil by visiting a waypoint in India is different than the cache being discussed here (even it follows the same general principle).    

I'm not a reviewer, and this does seem to be stretching the guidelines to me.. but I'm sure the reviewer considered all the aspects.   A different cache using a similar technique, and/or a different reviewer may come to a different conclusion.   

Using my own "it seems cool" and "does no harm" guideline, I like it.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, pri0n said:
1 hour ago, brendan714 said:

In that case, pri0n must have visited all ~70 possible places that his virtual cache could be logged from within the last 2 months

As a matter of fact I've visited all of them within 2 days

So it seems then the only caveat is that they're not all listed as additional waypoints; for sake of simplicity the link to the list was provided rather than explicit waypoints.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, pri0n said:

As a matter of fact I've visited all of them within 2 days

Thus satisfying the requirement that the cache owner visited all waypoints within the two months before cache placement, and determined they could be used for his cache.

Seems to me that this cannot be said by any of the cache owners of the recently archived Brass Hat caches, who were pretty much saying "go find where there's supposed to be a marker, see if there's a legal way to get to it, and see if it's in good enough condition to photograph because I haven't visited all these locations".  Yes, all those things make them more fun to hunt for, but they don't meet the guidelines.  And, yes, they might have met the guidelines at the time, but the decision was made to not allow them to be grandfathered against the new requirements.  Why?  Don't ask me, ask Groundspeak.  My guess?  Partly that they were trying to make sure that any location mentioned on their website is legally accessible, and that there is something there when you get there.  Makes for a better caching experience.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...