Why can’t I post a virtual cache? I really wanted to

[+Randomperson4333]

Why doesn’t geocaching allow you to post a virtual cache anymore? Why was it discontinued? I found a perfect spot for one 

[geoawareUSA9]

It's a long story, but the short version is:

 

Virtual caches were, at least in part, intended to be for places where you couldn't put a physical cache.

 

But people started submitting all kinds of virtuals, because they were easy. So the guidelines were changed to restrict virtuals for quality - I believe the requirement was a "wow factor" - and yet, it got to the point where there were virtual caches submitted for, among other things, an animal carcass and a shoe in the woods.

 

So, they went away for a little more than a decade, and when they came back, they were limited. The theory was, if a cacher only gets one shot at a virtual, they'll make sure to pick something that's really worth it.

 

The good news is, if you hide a cache this year that gets 4 or more favorite points, you might get one.

[+barefootjeff]

29 minutes ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

The theory was, if a cacher only gets one shot at a virtual, they'll make sure to pick something that's really worth it.

 

Which makes me wonder even more why, for Rewards 4.0, those who've previously received a Virtual Reward are eligible and why there's no opt-in this time around so that those who didn't particularly want one and don't have anywhere in mind to place it will likely get them.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

1 hour ago, Randomperson4333 said:

Why doesn’t geocaching allow you to post a virtual cache anymore? Why was it discontinued? I found a perfect spot for one 

 

Shortsightedness.

 

48 minutes ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

It's a long story, but the short version is:

 

Virtual caches were, at least in part, intended to be for places where you couldn't put a physical cache.

 

But people started submitting all kinds of virtuals, because they were easy. So the guidelines were changed to restrict virtuals for quality - I believe the requirement was a "wow factor" - and yet, it got to the point where there were virtual caches submitted for, among other things, an animal carcass and a shoe in the woods.

 

So, they went away for a little more than a decade, and when they came back, they were limited. The theory was, if a cacher only gets one shot at a virtual, they'll make sure to pick something that's really worth it.

 

The good news is, if you hide a cache this year that gets 4 or more favorite points, you might get one.

 

FTFY, I think, and to the best of my recollection:

 

People started submitting all kinds of virtuals, because they were easy. It got to the point where there were virtual caches submitted for, among other things, an animal carcass.

 

So the guidelines were changed to restrict virtuals for quality- the requirement was a "wow factor" that was highly subjective and open to wide interpretation.

 

Some wanted virtual caches to only be for places where you couldn't put a physical cache.

 

So, they went away for a little more than a decade. When they came back, they were limited and the way they were awarded was not very good. The theory was, if a cacher only gets one shot at a virtual, they'll make sure to pick something that's really worth it. This theory, in my opinion, proved to be invalid. At least in part due to it kind of reflecting the already failed 'wow' factor criteria.

 

The good news is, if you hide a cache this year that gets 4 or more favorite points, you might get one. Or you might not and someone who already has one will get a second one instead.

[+Jayeffel]

A way to utilize a Virtual Cache, but not the away you intend, is make a multi with the first stage a Virtual with some info gathering to find the second. Obtaining the Info on site would make it a Multi, but if it needs worked on off site, at home or on the web for instance,it would be a Puzzle. I think you refer to a stand alone Virtual.

[+MNTA]

1 hour ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

But people started submitting all kinds of virtuals, because they were easy. So the guidelines were changed to restrict virtuals for quality - I believe the requirement was a "wow factor" - and yet, it got to the point where there were virtual caches submitted for, among other things, an animal carcass and a shoe in the woods.

 

Or a tree of shoes.

Filet of Sole Virtual Cache

GC4B0A 

 

[+cerberus1]

14 hours ago, Randomperson4333 said:

Why doesn’t geocaching allow you to post a virtual cache anymore? Why was it discontinued? I found a perfect spot for one 

 

Virtual Caches were for areas that wouldn't allow a container IIRC, and ended in late 2005, so that's just a few years before you joined...   

People started going for "points" rather than unique areas, and it simply didn't work out.

They've been "awarded" a couple times, something needed to qualify, and a large bunch issued weren't placed. Probably what you saw.

You'll need to put out at least one cache that receives 4 Favorite Points by the end of December '23 to be eligible for this new one.

Have four of your friends give what you put out a FP and you "qualify"...

[+hukilaulau]

I remember one freeway rest area virtual where the cache page said, "I made this rest area a virtual because I didn't want to maintain a physical cache."

I wish that player could have been banned from hiding, posting, or even thinking about the game

[+barefootjeff]

21 hours ago, Corp Of Discovery said:

So, they went away for a little more than a decade. When they came back, they were limited and the way they were awarded was not very good. The theory was, if a cacher only gets one shot at a virtual, they'll make sure to pick something that's really worth it. This theory, in my opinion, proved to be invalid. At least in part due to it kind of reflecting the already failed 'wow' factor criteria.

 

My experience of the Rewards virtuals is that they've generally been a better experience than the small number (12 in New South Wales) of surviving original virtuals here. I've found 5 originals, 10 Rewards 1.0, 12 Rewards 2.0 and only 2 Rewards 3.0 (because all those went to COs in the southern half of the state), so not a big sample, but some of the stand-out ones for me were Figure Eight (GC7B9MJ) in the Royal National Park south of Sydney, Fortress (GC7B6E4) atop a 70 metre waterfall in the Blue Mountains National Park west of Sydney, Pulbah Island - Virtual Reward 2.0 (GC890DW) on an island nature reserve in Lake Macquarie and 295 "Virtual Reward 2.0" (GC890FR) in Bouddi National Park on Broken Bay.

 

 

These are all in places where a physical cache either wouldn't be allowed or would be difficult to get permission for. Of course everyone has different tastes, but the Rewards virtuals around here have had a good spread of experiences, from tourist photo spots on Sydney harbour and historic buildings to extreme remote adventures.

 

Hopefully there might be some Rewards 4.0 ones a bit closer to home than all the 3.0 ones so I'll get to experience a few more.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, hukilaulau said:

I made this rest area a virtual because I didn't want to maintain a physical cache.

🤣I get that. That's why I only have 19 physical caches. I don't want to maintain any more, and 19 is too many I think too. The last physical cache I placed was in March 2019, and that is only because it was in my Little free library. I can think of great places to place more, but as I actually do regularly visit them to maintain them, I am not planning to place any more. Many who place great numbers of caches, rarely appear to maintain them. Rather archive and place a new one than maintain the present caches. Not all are like this; there are exceptions. I did place a Virtual last year, but only as I didn't have to visit to maintain it. Plus it is over 2,500kms away, one way. Placed it where there are VERY few caches.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Rather archive and place a new one than maintain the present caches.

 

I may be a heretic for saying this, but I think there may be circumstances where this is a reasonable tactic. I'm thinking of remote difficult-to-access caches where something sturdy with a large logbook is placed, with no intention to revisit it until the time comes to retrieve and archive it. My own Peat's Peak cache (GCA2XYJ) almost falls into that category (note I said almost). It's a plastic ammo can with an A5 200-page logbook which I placed last December deep inside a wind-eroded cave on the edge of the summit of a rarely-visited hill with no tracks and moderately thick undergrowth surrounding it.

 

 

I've revisited it once since then, to rescue a trackable I'd dropped when placing it in the hope it would soon move on (it didn't), and the cache has only had 7 finds, the most recent in April. It's not going to need any wear-and-tear maintenance, even if the container's seal fails it won't matter because the hiding place is always dry, and the logbook is never going to fill up. About the worst that's likely to happen to it is something calamitous like it melting in a full-on summer bushfire (a winter hazard reduction burn wouldn't worry it) or the rare possibility of it being muggled, and regular visits from me won't stop either of those from happening. That said, I probably will still visit it from time to time, simply to stretch my legs in what I think is a pretty nice spot, but if anything did happen to it I'd likely just archive it rather than repair or replace it.

 

In a similar vein is this one I visited today. I placed it in February 2017 so it's now six and a half years old but it's never needed maintenance and likely won't for at least another decade or two, by which time I'll be ready to archive it.

 

 

Its hiding place under a rock ledge protects it from the sun and the container does its job of protecting the contents from any moisture coming off the nearby watercourse and cascade. It survived the la Nina floods of recent years without the slightest hint of dampness, probably because it's above the top of a small waterfall with nothing to make the water bank up there, and again it's in a spot where it's unlikely to be disturbed by muggles. I've logged 6 OMs on it over the years but all have just been reporting on checks after heavy rain with everything being fine. It could just as easily have been set and forget.

Edited August 31, 2023 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+Goldenwattle]

21 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I may be a heretic for saying this, but I think there may be circumstances where this is a reasonable tactic. I'm thinking of remote difficult-to-access caches where something sturdy with a large logbook is placed, with no intention to revisit it until the time comes to retrieve and archive it.

That's fair enough, as you place good, suitable caches. Many people of the publish and forget the cache types though put very unsuitable caches out, which soon deteriorate. How about using these on a power trail and rating them as smalls.

 

Or these, which leak and rust. Also listed as small...naturally🙄. (This shows up on my laptop screen much bigger than it accurately is.)

Edited September 1, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

How about using these on a power trail and rating them as smalls.[...]

 

Or these, which leak and rust. Also listed as small...naturally🙄.

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, niraD said:

Agree, and those sort of caches aren't going to attract new players. But there's nothing the rest of us can do about this. We can't even report the wrong size rating.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I was very happy to have received a Virtual Reward 3.0.  I placed it in Weehawken, NJ, where over 60,000 people were boat-lifted across the Hudson River on 9/11.  

Weehawken 9/11 Memorial Virtual Reward 3.0 Virtual Cache

GC9P4VA