Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
GrateBear

Would like your thoughts on a remote virtual!

Recommended Posts

I was lucky enough to be awarded a virtual cache this year, and am pondering where to place it.  I can always do something locally, but that just seems to be somewhat common.  I'm thinking about a location that is in a rather remote location that requires a decent drive with about 5/6 miles of that on a sort of rough road.  The road it doable for most cars, but not a low slung sports car at all--a bit rocky, but two ways in (I only went in/out in the same direction).  There is traditional cache nearby, so it does get some traffic.  Location is easy to find, but terrain is probably around 3.5 due to the road.

What do you think?  Good idea or not?

Thanks.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, GrateBear said:

I was lucky enough to be awarded a virtual cache this year, and am pondering where to place it.  I can always do something locally, but that just seems to be somewhat common.  I'm thinking about a location that is in a rather remote location that requires a decent drive with about 5/6 miles of that on a sort of rough road.  The road it doable for most cars, but not a low slung sports car at all--a bit rocky, but two ways in (I only went in/out in the same direction).  There is traditional cache nearby, so it does get some traffic.  Location is easy to find, but terrain is probably around 3.5 due to the road.

What do you think?  Good idea or not?

Thanks.

That's a good question! I would think it's OK as long as you explain the difficulty on the cache page.

By not locally, it's still near you, right?  I'm guessing it's a location with a great view?

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, GrateBear said:

What do you think?

Is this where you'd like to put your virtual cache? It sounds like it is, so go for it!

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't receive one, but the criteria I set myself should I have were that it be somewhere a physical cache couldn't go, somewhere really special that people would be unlikely to discover if not for the cache, and be somewhere within my region (mainly because at the time my region didn't have any virtuals). You say there's already a traditional nearby so that makes me wonder why use up the only virtual you're ever likely to get in a spot where a physical cache could be placed, but not knowing the locality there might be other reasons why a virtual is the best option there.

 

As for remoteness, I don't think that would be a problem. One of the things with a virtual is it's unlikely to need maintenance, and for me at least, having to make considerable effort to get to GZ makes the find all the more worthwhile. On the other hand, I did ponder whether one of the spots I was thinking about, at the end of a pretty tough T4 hike, might exclude too many who aren't up to that sort of physical challenge, so it's probably a bit of a balancing act. I suppose that's more an issue if it's the only virtual in the region, as if there are other easier ones around you can be a bit more challenging.

 

I'm not sure about including the condition or length of the road in the terrain rating. If most cachers are going to be able to drive along it, I'd be basing the terrain on what's between the nearest parking spot and GZ. I guess it would depend on how many are likely to park at the start of the road and hike along it (or ride a mountain bike); the logs on the nearby traditional may give you a good feel for that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with barefootjeff with regards ideally designing/placing a virtual where you can't have a physical cache.

 

But regardless, if this is the spot you like and you think it will make a cool virtual, then go for it!  Remoteness is not an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I didn't receive one, but the criteria I set myself should I have were that it be somewhere a physical cache couldn't go, somewhere really special that people would be unlikely to discover if not for the cache, and be somewhere within my region (mainly because at the time my region didn't have any virtuals). You say there's already a traditional nearby so that makes me wonder why use up the only virtual you're ever likely to get in a spot where a physical cache could be placed, but not knowing the locality there might be other reasons why a virtual is the best option there.

 

 

 

I was fortunate enough to have received one of the original Virtual Rewards and I went in with pretty much the same mindset: to find a unique, interesting spot, that it be relatively close to home and that there wasn't a physical cache already there (whether allowed or not). Those are good ideals to shoot for, but they work much better on the drawing board than in reality.

 

Now, there is plenty of Wisconsin that I haven't seen or visited but I learned pretty quick in my search for a worthy spot that finding a location without a physical cache already placed was much harder than I thought it was going to be. If there was something unique about the spot, someone had already placed a cache near it or used it as part of a cache. I think that is a reality in a lot of places, at least in the United States...so many of the good spots usually already have a cache there. 

 

So, I adjusted my parameters a bit. If a location was far enough away from home that I wouldn't place a physical cache because of maintenance, I thought it would be fair game for a virtual, even if there were other nearby caches. 

 

If you find a spot that you really like and feel like it fits your criteria for an interesting virtual, you should submit it for publication. The only caveat that I would put to that is if this location has something really unique about it and there is already a cache there, I would contact the CO of that cache and sort of hash it out. Someone placed a Virtual Reward at Lambeau Field in Green Bay and the CO that had a physical cache already in the parking lot got a little sore about it. 

Share this post


Link to post

Do it! Awesome idea. I did a long weekend road trip through the Saline Valley of Death Valley NP 85 miles of questionable roads, beat up my car on that trip needed a wheel alignment afterwards.  Had a blast. The only physical caches were outside park boundaries would have been nice to have more to find/explore. Good luck in finding an awesome spot.

Share this post


Link to post

If it´s not done for the sake of being remote, but to show a really awsome place in the remotenes, I´d say go for it!

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, GrateBear said:

II'm thinking about a location that is in a rather remote location

 

So far I like it.

 

that requires a decent drive with about 5/6 miles of that on a sort of rough road.

 

And now I do not like it any more. Driving to ground zero by car is nothing that makes a cache special in any way and for sure in times of climate problems "forcing" others to use their car is not recommandable.

 

If you had told me that this place is only (and only!) reachable by a hike of that length that would be perfect. I am afraid such a virtual cache wouldn't get to many found it logs but those who did the trail (twice) would like it for sure.

 

If the place is great then use it for your cache - no matter what I say. But remember that caching should be about being outside, movement, ... and not about driving your car as close to ground zero as possible. It is like climbing a mountain versus using the train going up - you only feel good if you managed the climb with your own power and you won't forget the hard way. :-)

 

Just a proposal (that sure no one likes but me): Perhaps there is another trail which you can only walk (or cycle) which leads to your ground zero. If you make a "virtual multi cache" with questions along the route you might "force" the cachers to hike to your significant and distant place.

 

Jochen

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, frostengel said:
10 hours ago, GrateBear said:

I'm thinking about a location that is in a rather remote location

 

So far I like it.

 

 

Quote

that requires a decent drive with about 5/6 miles of that on a sort of rough road.

 

 

And now I do not like it any more. Driving to ground zero by car is nothing that makes a cache special in any way and for sure in times of climate problems "forcing" others to use their car is not recommandable.

 

If you had told me that this place is only (and only!) reachable by a hike of that length that would be perfect. I am afraid such a virtual cache wouldn't get to many found it logs but those who did the trail (twice) would like it for sure.

 

Just because one can drive on a rough road, does not mean one can't also walk it.  Some of my favorite walks have been on desert tracks or on good old "Anlieger frei" tracks through forests or fields.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

Just because one can drive on a rough road, does not mean one can't also walk it.  Some of my favorite walks have been on desert tracks or on good old "Anlieger frei" tracks through forests or fields.

 

Of course you can. And if there is a parking lot near the start of the multi cache you can park 2 miles away and walk to the start. You can - but who does?

 

I mainly wanted to point out that a location being "distant" loses the fact of being distant (and therefore some of its attractiveness) if you can go there by car. Most of the cachers will drive by, get out of their car and don't have the feeling which I think the thread opener wanted to intend. In the end there will be no big difference between this cache and any other cache in "civilisation".

 

Reading the first post I had the feeling that this is something important to the owner which should make his cache special. And I think - personal opinion! - that with the given facts that what he wants will not occur. :-(

Share this post


Link to post

Perfect... but please remind to follow the rules, like having been in the GZ in the previous two months.

I feel annoyed by the amount of Earthcaches and Virtuals where the owner asks for others to go where he didn't... never at all. :(

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

I've logged a couple of virtual caches where there was a traditional (or several) nearby. One was at a location where there was a natural bridge created over a stream. This was because the stream was in a mostly collapsed lava tube. Some sections had not collapsed, forming the bridge. The stream would have been deadly to fall into, and the lava flow dangerous to walk on, therefore the only way to see this was to walk on wooden walkways, to a viewing platform. There were two traditionals in the parking lot, where there was no way you could see the stream or natural bridge. My point, if the location for your virtual is this unique, I wouldn't worry about the fact that there is a traditional nearby.

 

As to including the condition of the road as a factor is determining the terrain, here's a cache that impassible several months out of the year, and may have issues in the rainy season. They gave it a 1.5/1.5 rating, and did not appear to factor the road into the terrain. My opinion is to note the road conditions, but assume the terrain rating is only from the parking area to GZ. (And, you would be amazed at some of the roads I have taken in my Mini Cooper.)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, frostengel said:

 

Of course you can. And if there is a parking lot near the start of the multi cache you can park 2 miles away and walk to the start. You can - but who does?

 

I mainly wanted to point out that a location being "distant" loses the fact of being distant (and therefore some of its attractiveness) if you can go there by car. Most of the cachers will drive by, get out of their car and don't have the feeling which I think the thread opener wanted to intend. In the end there will be no big difference between this cache and any other cache in "civilisation".

 

Reading the first post I had the feeling that this is something important to the owner which should make his cache special. And I think - personal opinion! - that with the given facts that what he wants will not occur. :-(

I can think of a couple of spots in the CO's region that don't fit that thinking at all - the first is Big Southern Butte.  The route is no simple drive, depending on the last time someone 'groomed' it, it can be very challenging (steep, rocky and no railing to get in the way of the view) and that is after many miles of desert dirt road.  It pretty remote (2+ hours from any city) but the view is stupendous.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the input.  I have contacted my local reviewer to make sure this one would be allowed.  Radiocarbon dating has it about 15,000 years old, artifacts found indicate it was used by native people around 10,000 years ago, and it is on the National Register of Historic Places, managed by the BLM.  Was there yesterday and it is quite remarkable.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

As to including the condition of the road as a factor is determining the terrain, here's a cache that impassible several months out of the year, and may have issues in the rainy season. They gave it a 1.5/1.5 rating, and did not appear to factor the road into the terrain. My opinion is to note the road conditions, but assume the terrain rating is only from the parking area to GZ. (And, you would be amazed at some of the roads I have taken in my Mini Cooper.)

 

I tend to agree with this as well.    If you're going to factor a road into terrain, then some might argue that a cache in Hawaii should be a 5T because the only way to it is by boat or plane. 

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, why not! I went with the same thought and placed mine on an island where not many cachers to go, and those that do don't want to do a 10 mile hike. I had no logs this year. But that was to be expected.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I tend to agree with this as well.    If you're going to factor a road into terrain, then some might argue that a cache in Hawaii should be a 5T because the only way to it is by boat or plane. 

Unless, of course, you live there - but then every other cache in the world should be a 5T since you'd need a boat or plane to reach them.  A meaningless argument.

 

I've seen caches where the road difficulty should be part of the Terrain.  Just because it can be driven to doesn't mean every skill level of driving or every vehicle can make the drive.  I've been on some roads (and found caches along the way) in the Cascades in a mini-van that others (four wheel driver) express shock that I made it thru.  I drove out from Potter's Pond on Skyline Drive - another route where skill and vehicle were needed (I'm glad when we first attempted it, snow turned us back before we got to the "fun" part).

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, GrateBear said:

Radiocarbon dating has it about 15,000 years old, artifacts found indicate it was used by native people around 10,000 years ago, and it is on the National Register of Historic Places, managed by the BLM.

 

Sounds like a perfect place for an earthcache, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, frostengel said:

 

Sounds like a perfect place for an earthcache, doesn't it?

 

What's the geology lesson here? Radio carbon dating is not something you can see at the location. You could potentially do something really simplistic with dendochronology, but just something being somewhat old doesn't warrant an EC. Sounds like a perfect location for a virtual to me.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, terratin said:

Sounds like a perfect location for a virtual to me.

 

In fact it sounds like a perfect place for a "normal" cache - but there is already one..... ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

In fact it sounds like a perfect place for a "normal" cache - but there is already one..... ;-)

Sounds like a perfect place for a cache - of whatever type the CO wants to hide.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

According to the Geocaching Help Page, terrain is defined at "Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates". And, the examples say 'hike' an awful lot. Nothing explicit about any other mode of transportation, except for T5. I guess the decision would be based on what you think a majority of cachers would do. If you think that most would drive to a close by parking area, don't factor in the road. It sounds like any two wheel drive vehicle with eight inches of ground clearance could make it in. So, that would probably be a majority of the cachers, and therefore the road shouldn't be factored in.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...