Approver's thoughts on Virtual Caches

1k · September 23, 2003

Hi Guys,

In recent postings, on another forum, there has been a lot of discussion about virtual caches.

Please see here:

http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=4016058331&m=30460177&r=72460177 - 72460177

The discussion would seem to be about the approval of virtual caches.

Perhaps the consensus is that virtual caches should be considered in a different way. That perhaps the guidelines ought to be far more emphatic when suggesting that virtual caches should be the exception.

We both think that, again, this is a cultural and evolutionary difference between the USA and UK, in the way virtual caches have developed.

Research is limited but we feel that in many USA urban areas virtual caches have become, perhaps, meaningless to a certain extent. Eckington has never cached in the USA, nor is he likely to, but we have found that in some urban areas, for instance Austin, Texas, there is a plethora of virtual caches, 52 within 20 mile radius. There are similar numbers in other cities in New Jersey and in Illinois. This equates to 35 in Greater London (e & o e).

In the UK we think there is, at the moment, some room for virtual caches, under carefully considered conditions.

We would apply, strictly, the guidelines where we believe a physical cache could exist. In cache pages setters talk about open woodland, good views, wildlife preserves. Here we think a virtual cache could lead to a physical cache, off-set or micro. These we would not approve as virtuals, but would expect a physical to be set.

We also tend to check the proposed site of a virtual cache against mapping software, and if we feel a physical is appropriate we will say so.

There are also places; Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Ancient Monuments, War Memorials, and sites of Social or Community Interest where we think a virtual cache is appropriate. These we would approve.

Jeremy Irish has said that one should consider the site carefully first, and then seek approval, being prepared to be disappointed, we agree with this.

He has also said that the idea of the game is to seek a physical objective.

Of all the virtual caches we have been asked to approve in the last few months the very great majority have either stood by the guidelines, by our interpretation, or the setters have agreed to set physicals. Very few setters have been upset. Which further supports our view that cachers in UK are able to be as flexible as the approvers can be.

We hope you all can understand this position and take it in to consideration when asking for the approval of virtual caches here.

Cheers and cache Well,

Eckington and Lactodorum

September 24, 2003

quote:
We would apply, strictly, the guidelines where we believe a physical cache could exist. In cache pages setters talk about open woodland, good views, wildlife preserves. Here we think a virtual cache could lead to a physical cache, off-set or micro. These we would not approve as virtuals, but would expect a physical to be set.

In general, I would agree with the concept here. I'm assuming that there would still be "room for negotiation".... for example, if a landowner is not willing to permit a physical cache, then it is quite possible that a virtual cache could still be quite worthwhile. But I think you'd be right to ask for good justification.

Perhaps another example is a place worth of visit, which might, prima face, be suitable for a physical, but experience shows that a physical would not survive (I am up in Glasgow, and visited such a site last night: it used to be a physical, but is now a virtual. The item being looked for is fairly easy to find... but not 100% obvious until you are within, say, 5 metres of it. But the site holds an interesting history, and I felt it worthwhile of a visit. There had been a physical there, but I guess "local conditions" probably meant it wouldn't survive too well!!!)

quote:
There are also places; Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Ancient Monuments, War Memorials, and sites of Social or Community Interest where we think a virtual cache is appropriate. These we would approve.

... as long as the place IS worthwhile, then looks sensible to me.

quote:
He has also said that the idea of the game is to seek a physical objective.

Whether you agree or disagree, its good that such a statement has been made: we now know where we stand!

quote:
We hope you all can understand this position and take it in to consideration when asking for the approval of virtual caches here.

I think it sounds very fair, and reflects the way I had believed virtual caches were being handled anyway: if you CAN place a physical (either directly or indirectly), then do so, but if not, and the place is worthy of a cache, a virtual is acceptable.

Paul

Another proud member of the GAGB!

September 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Eckington:
Perhaps the consensus is that virtual caches should be considered in a different way. That perhaps the guidelines ought to be far more emphatic when suggesting that virtual caches should be the exception.

I was going to ask how it smells up there at the nostril end of your nose, but instead I will say that there is a large number of geocachers who think the treasure found at the end of a good virtual cache is just as much a treasure as the one found at the end of a good real cache. Most times, IMHO, the container is not the thing that makes a cache really good in the first place.

quote:
We both think that, again, this is a cultural and evolutionary difference between the USA and UK, in the way virtual caches have developed.

And there is something wrong with this? See below to see how circumstances may differ widely, as well.

quote:
Research is limited but we feel that in many USA urban areas virtual caches have become, perhaps, meaningless to a certain extent. Eckington has never cached in the USA, nor is he likely to, but we have found that in some urban areas, for instance Austin, Texas, there is a plethora of virtual caches, 52 within 20 mile radius. There are similar numbers in other cities in New Jersey and in Illinois. This equates to 35 in Greater London (e & o e).

I will admit that Austin has a large number of virtual caches in our downtown area, probably because it is a) the seat of government for both the county and the state; and it is home to the largest university in the state and one of the largest in the USA. Within about a 2 square mile area, there is simply a TON of history, educational attractions, and local color. I estimate that 75-80% of those virtual caches in that concentrated area are on properties where caches are inappropriate or strictly forbidden, for example the Capitol Grounds and the State Cemetary. The remainder probably contains what we both would consider "lame" caches, that were "grandfathered" under the old "no rules" rules, but I certainly would not say that of all of them.On the other hand, I haven't found an area yet that didn't have a few lame "real" caches in with the good ones. In fact, they are becoming more and more common in our area as the number of geocachers increases. We're starting to use a "who placed this cache, and will it be worth going for?" approach, which we didn't have to do a year ago. (I can't speak for other cities or regions, of course.)

quote:
In the UK we think there is, at the moment, some room for virtual caches, under carefully considered conditions.

Again I cannot understand the contradictory policy of saying "be creative with your caches," but then turning around and deciding that an obviously popular form of cache that evolved should be stifled simply because there is no container at the end of the hunt.

quote:
We would apply, strictly, the guidelines where we believe a physical cache could exist. In cache pages setters talk about open woodland, good views, wildlife preserves. Here we think a virtual cache could lead to a physical cache, off-set or micro. These we would not approve as virtuals, but would expect a physical to be set.

Our wildlife preserves are strictly governed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, a part if the US Department of the Interior. The FWS a strictly bans physical caches of any kind, micro or otherwise. Most preserves allow hiking on developed trails only, with no variance. This totally precludes physical caches but does not preclude a virtual that teaches the geocacher while helping him appreciate why the area is so closely protected. These restrictions affect over 100,000 acres in the Austin-Travis County region. In the past 12 or so years, and forward into the next 17 or so, people who love the outdoors in Central Texas look to lose access to about 30,500 acres to protect 2 endangered songbird species, several indangered cave and karst invertebrates, and many others listed as threatened. I'm not talking "oh, you can only hike on the trails in here" -- I'm talking 100% loss of access unless you are a research scientist or trained volunteer working to save the endangered species. I don't know if you have the same kind of rules governing sensitive lands in UK or Europe, but we are uniquely affected by them in a much larger way than most open lands in the US. We have a large amount of openly available parkland, and we are lucky to have opened good communication lines with the City, County, and State Parks so that most are open to geocaching, but we certainly dare not threaten that by disregarding the strict rules in place in many areas.

quote:
We also tend to check the proposed site of a virtual cache against mapping software, and if we feel a physical is appropriate we will say so.

And I certainly hope that you take the knowledge and experience of a local geocacher into account, if they can present evidence that it is not!

quote:
There are also places; Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Ancient Monuments, War Memorials, and sites of Social or Community Interest where we think a virtual cache is appropriate. These we would approve.

OK ...

quote:
Jeremy Irish has said that one should consider the site carefully first, and then seek approval, being prepared to be disappointed. We agree with this.
He has also said that the idea of the game is to seek a physical objective.

Once again I wonder how it smells up there, and once again I wonder about the creativity dichotomy.

quote:
Of all the virtual caches we have been asked to approve in the last few months the very great majority have either stood by the guidelines, by our interpretation, or the setters have agreed to set physicals. Very few setters have been upset. Which further supports our view that cachers in UK are able to be as flexible as the approvers can be.

Funny, that's not what I hear from down here in Texas, y'all! Once again, I support the belief that a lack of a container does not make a virtual cache any less viable than a physical cache. It's a closed-minded philosophy that will eventually, I'm afraid, splinter this fine community, the end result being that it's much harder to maintain support for the game from public (govt.) entities.

Kindest regards, and Happy Trails! from Austin, TX USA

Candy Lind

quote:
... I can quit any time I like ... really, I CAN!!

Candy (Moosiegirl)http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralTexasGeocachers/

September 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Eckington:

He has also said that the idea of the game is to seek a physical objective.

Eckington and Lactodorum

i agree.

but why does the 'physical objective' always have to be some kind of container hidden from sight? at least half the fun for me is going places i havent been and seeing things i havent seen. if this means occasionaly looking at signs, buildings, statues, etc. i dont mind. its a break from poking around rocks and trees. its also a break from snakes, chiggers, poion ivy, etc.

September 27, 2003

I would like to add one other comment on the discussion of virtual vs physical caches. How many physical caches, even those that are rated 1/1, are TRULY handicapped accessible? Having virtual caches in the area allows those less able the ability to join in this activity, also. The disability may not be severe enough to require a wheelchair or other adaptive item, but may be something such as a severe heart condition or other chronic illness. Having the virtual caches allows these people to participate in the activity and learn something about their community. Should we be excluding these people, merely because they can't walk long distances?

Also, on our recent tour of Washington, D.C., the majority of caches we found were virtual caches (due to the sensitivity of the area). Without these virtual caches taking us to places as the summerhouse behind the Capitol, Einstein's statue, the Botanic Gardens, and many other fine places, we might well have missed these sights due to our limited knowledge of the area and limited time. Thank you to all of those geocachers that took the time to inform us of places they felt were worthy of visiting!

If we were able to go to London, or some other great city overseas, we would look for the virtuals to highlight some of the sights we should see.

Just another facet of the discussion.

Malia and Jim

September 27, 2003

To begin with, if you hadn’t decided to use Austin as your ”bad example” I probably wouldn’t have even noticed. But you did, and I did.

Firstly, you mention there are 52 virtual caches within a 20 mile radius in Austin (well, I guess that depends on where you put the center)…to 35 in the same area around London….Well, when I looked up how many total caches there where within 20 miles of the center of Austin (using the Goddess of Liberty on our capital as the center) I found 242 total. When I did a search within 20 miles of what I assumed was the center of London, I only found 138 total caches…That gives less than 22% virtual to Austin, and over 25% virtual to London…

I also wish to respond to the concept of “meaningless” which was ascribed to virtual caches. Does meaning have anything to do with it. Caches which show on Jeremy Irish’s website are those which please Jeremy Irish. It is not uncommon for businesses, including websites, to foster the illusion of “community” to try to increase customer loyalty. Mr. Irish has made it quite clear that what he says goes, which on a business level surprises me, but on a personal level does not. It is his website, and “meaning” has nothing to do with it.

I will add that just because a cache is not listed on this website does not mean it is not worth hunting. My favorite example is that of letterboxes. Many letterboxes, here AND in your country, are not listed anywhere, and are only known by word of mouth. Does that make them any less worth perusing?

I can only say that I invite you to come to Austin to explore our caches, virtual and otherwise, before you render an option. Should you manage the trip across the pond, I’d be quite happy to take you to a few of our caches, share a few of our local beers with you (they are served cold because our mean room temperature is about 25 degrees warmer than yours) and then see what you think.

thorax

[This message was edited by thorax on September 28, 2003 at 05:31 AM.]

September 28, 2003

Oh well Eckington and Lactodorum… At least the guys in the UK knew what you were talking about! Such friendly people around Austin… Must be well worth a visit?

Eagles may fly high, but weasels don’t get sucked into jet engines…

September 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by thorax:
Firstly, you mention there are 52 virtual caches within a 20 mile radius in Austin (well, I guess that depends on where you put the center)…to 35 in the same area around London….Well, when I looked up how many total caches there where within 20 miles of the center of Austin (using the Goddess of Liberty on our capital as the center) I found 242 total. When I did a search within 20 miles of what I assumed was the center of London, I only found 138 total caches…

I think one of the main points that Eckington was making was the lower cache density as a whole, and the lower overall density of virtuals, rather than a "proportional" comparison. Remember that each cache, virt or physical, creates a .1 mile "exclusion zone" where nothing else can be placed.

With the current priorities on physical caches, that means (if you hate virtuals, as some people seem to) that there are 52 "dead zones" in Austin and 26 in London.

quote:
Caches which show on Jeremy Irish’s website are those which please Jeremy Irish. It is not uncommon for businesses, including websites, to foster the illusion of “community” to try to increase customer loyalty. Mr. Irish has made it quite clear that what he says goes, which on a business level surprises me, but on a personal level does not.

Yes, but we as his customer base can discuss his decisions, to give him an idea whether a policy will gain or lose him customers (and, therefore, money). I tend to see the anti-virt thing as the product of a certain crowd of cachers, very active on the notice boards, who feel the activity needs to be heavily regulated. If they kill off virts altogether, I suspect micros will be the next target. But that's just me.

Post edited to remove ethnic reference from previous posts, and my response. The cacher in question has edited his/her post to remove the comments in question, so there is no sense leaving any references to the issue here. Apart from this note, of course

And Eckington, thanks for the clarification, and the realistic view, on virtuals. I've said it in other places, and I'll say it here. There are some damned good virts and some pretty rotten physical caches. I don't think banning virts will raise the cache quality. I'm glad you're not doing it.

evilrooster

http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

[This message was edited by evilrooster on September 28, 2003 at 07:35 AM.]

September 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moosiegirl:
I was going to ask how it smells up there at the nostril end of your nose

I have no idea what this means... is it a Texas thing? Or have I just led a sheltered upbringing? Anyone care to shed any light?

And to others.....

Edited to remove some potentially inflammatory stuff. But I will say please take it easy on the racial slurs. I don't think the best way of making a point on someone elses "turf" is to insult them.

______________________

What is caches precious?

[This message was edited by Team AshandEs on September 28, 2003 at 04:16 AM.]

September 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team AshandEs:
[.......

Edited to remove some potentially inflammatory stuff. But I will say please take it easy on the racial slurs. I don't think the best way of making a point on someone elses "turf" is to insult them.

______________________

What is caches precious?

[This message was edited by Team AshandEs on September 28, 2003 at 04:16 AM.]

Didn't see anything wrong with your first version

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

September 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team AshandEs:

quote:
Originally posted by Moosiegirl:
I was going to ask how it smells up there at the nostril end of your nose

I have no idea what this means... is it a Texas thing? Or have I just led a sheltered upbringing? Anyone care to shed any light?

]

Texas is a virtual country, sort of like Scotland, tho some times I can understand a Texan.

1.3k · September 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Eckington:
We also tend to check the proposed site of a virtual cache against mapping software, and if we feel a physical is appropriate we will say so.

There are also places; Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Ancient Monuments, War Memorials, and sites of Social or Community Interest where we think a virtual cache is appropriate. These we would approve.

Does this too depend on the area? Our first cache is within 0.1 miles of a war memorial... the main aim of he cache is to see the views from and around that memorial, and of course to remember why the memorial was placed. We toyed with making the memorial a waypoint to our cache, but decided to choose the car park that would take people right past it instead. The views from the cache itself are not as good as those on the way there. If the cache is destroyed, then maybe we'd look to convrt it into a virtual at the memorial. So... if a war memorial, as with the one in question, is in a country park, would we still be expected to place a physical? With some careful planning, as we did, it's possible to walk someone past the "virtual" without making it a multi-cache in such locations.

All caches are virtual... with one exception, which we placed for an event, our caches have the real treasure either in the walk, drive, or location.

Some people are born great, some achieve greatness, and some just grate

September 29, 2003

After some reflection concerning my earlier post, I felt I should add a few words. The comments in my post which were taken to be racially insensitive, and which I subsequently edited out of the post, were never intended to be hurtful or offensive to anyone. My intent was focused on cultural and political issues, but I had not understood how they might be construed as racial in content. It has always been my belief that racial and ethnic insensitivity is wrong, even when it is unintentional or made without prior knowledge as to its impact. To anyone who was disturbed, hurt, bothered or otherwise offended by those comments, I apologize. It was not my intention, and I will be aware of this specific issue in the future.

As to my other comments, after reviewing the original remarks by Eckington and Lactodorum, as well a responses in the thread, I may have misunderstood the original statement. As I said before, I understand that this is Mr. Irish’s website, and he is free to decide what the rules are, to apply the rules in whatever manner he sees fit. As for me, I’ve been exploring for many years, before GPSR’s, and before the Internet. I personally think it is unfortunate that Mr. Irish, along with those who assist him by approving and disapproving submissions by the users, has decided that virtual caches will only be approved in exceptional cases. But that is perfectly their prerogative. This is the same as the “0.1 mile deadzone.” My humble opinion is that virtual (as well as reverse and roving) caches adds interest and breadth to the hobby, but I also realize there are many ways to make a cache, several other websites, as well as alternative venues for posting or otherwise advertising the existence of a cache, just as there are many ways to spread the word on letterboxes and similar.

If I may, from reading many of the heated discussions on the various boards here concerning the approval and disapproval of caches, I see two common problems. The first, which was mentioned in Eckington and Lactodorum’s original post, was that the guidelines might not be clear enough. Not that this is necessary, but if they were, possibly with more extensive examples of what warrants approval and what warrants disapproval, might at least decrease the number of over excited submitters who take it personally when their submission is disapproved. The other area which, it seems to me, produces a great deal of emotion, is when the discussion moves to trying to explain the reasons for a submission’s disapproval. The discussion often turns into an argument as to whether the reasons make sense and whether they are applied uniformly. I can speak only for myself, but a simple statement that that’s what Mr. Irish (or his assistants) says is a lot more straight forward and leaves much less room for argument.

My only argument with the message is that the virtual caches in Austin were given as an example of ones that are “meaningless to a certain extent.” While I can accept that the approvers and disapprovers here may choose to not accept certain sites and approved virtual caches, which does not make them meaningless. Is the memorial in Austin to the small town of Praha, Texas that lost an entire generation of young men during World War II (GCA80E) meaningless? Is the memorial to the live and work of Barbara Jordan (GC3E1D) meaningless? How about the virtual that leads one to some of the last physical evidence left of the tragic “Tower” shooting in Austin in the 60’s, or the memorial to the University of Texas students to gave their lives in World War I? I noticed at least one of the participants in this thread uses the motto of the World Cup in his signature, so I assume sports (at least some sports) may not be considered meaningless, so why would the cache concerning the mascot chosen for Hutto Texas (GCD9B6) be meaningless. The virtuals in and around Austin concern our history and our heroes, as well as the merely interesting or offbeat. You and Mr. Irish approve them or disapprove them as you choose, but please take some time to consider if they should be termed meaningless.

Finally, imagining anyone has actually read this far down, I was serious in my post. Should you, by good or bad fortune, find yourself in this part of the world and be thirsty, it would be my honor to share some local brew with you, whether or not to discuss the issues in the post or the weather.

1.4k · September 30, 2003

The way I read the approvers post was that they were prepared to exercise some flexibility on virtuals which IMHO can only be a good thing.

I really dont understand some peoples problems with virts - if you don't like them don't do them. I think it was JeremyP (or possibly MCL) who said "Getting upset because you dont like all the caches near to you is like getting upset because you dont like all the movies on at your local cinema". Wise words indeed.

Personally we rarly do locationless caches, others love them. Why would we wish to stop others enjoying themselves when it has no impact on us?

For those who think virts are always dull, your choice but you could be missing out on some great experiences like these:

Historic Castleton

Helluva long walk!

Sea to shining Sea

etc, etc. All of which would make for a very memorable caching trip.

They may be virts but the would be far more interesting than a tupperware box behind a tree at the side of the road IMHO.

Long live Variety.

Chris

If only life had an undo button....

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

September 30, 2003

For what it's worth, our thoughts on this as ex-approvers.

Firstly, I'm sure that Eckington intended no offence to anybody when he started this thread, I'm sure that he wanted to explain to UK cachers where he was going on the subject of virtual caches. As usual though, no matter what you do, somebody will be less than happy. It is good to se that the thread has maintained civil discussion though.

There can be no doubt that there are a large number of virtual caches which are of great interest and value, at least to some. It also has to be said that there are also a number of virtual caches which are of absolutely no interest to anybody. An example, we rejected a virtual which simply consisted of obtaining the number on the side of a rubbish bin in a lay-by on a busy "A" road. It so happened that we knew the lay-by (it is close to home) and there is simply nothing there of any interest at all. No walk, no view, no historical info, simply a (usually overflowing) rubbish bin. Does that make a geocache ? I don't think so. However, there is a footpath leading away from that lay-by into the countryside, and, knowing the area, we know that there are locations along that footpath where a cache could be hidden. Was the cacher stopping off to answer a call of nature and spotted the "virtual" on his way back to the car ? Possibly !

Are the approvers in the UK trying to maintain the high standards that the UK is achieving ? I DO think so.

We have seen many virtual caches submitted which appear to be a "cop out" in as much as the cacher has found large numbers, but not hidden any. "Oops, guess I'd better do something so I don't get a bad reputation" type of response (the above example was from a cacher who had found more than 80, hidden 0). I am not suggesting for one moment that all virtuals are like that, but there are a number.

Perhaps we need to look a little more deeply into geocaching history to decide what constitutes a geocache and see if that has any bearing on why the guideline was created.

I'm not sure whether or not there is a definitive description of a geocache, but most websites on the subject seem to suggest that primarily, a geocache consists of a container with a logbook and swaps, hidden at some location for others to find. Certainly the first geocache hidden was. It could be argued that this is the "traditional" geocache.

Over time and as the game developed, it became obvious that some locations deserved a visit, but for one reason or another, a traditional cache could not be placed. If the setting of virtuals continues without some form of control we are in danger of loosing the thread of what geocaching really is. It could also be argued that a monument or similar is not hidden, it is available to all who simply pass by, either intentionally or otherwise and there are a number of websites on the Internet which are simply a database of waypoints of places of interest to somebody. Is this the direction geocaching should go ?

Eckington and Lactodorum you have our (T&J) support, keep the tin helmets on and invest in a new Kevlar suit.

As it says at the start of this post, just our thoughts on the subject.

Tim & June (Winchester)

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by thorax:
My only argument with the message is that the virtual caches in Austin were given as an example of ones that are “meaningless to a certain extent.” While I can accept that the approvers and disapprovers here may choose to not accept certain sites and approved virtual caches, which does not make them meaningless. Is the memorial in Austin to the small town of Praha, Texas that lost an entire generation of young men during World War II (GCA80E) meaningless? Is the memorial to the live and work of Barbara Jordan (GC3E1D) meaningless? How about the virtual that leads one to some of the last physical evidence left of the tragic “Tower” shooting in Austin in the 60’s, or the memorial to the University of Texas students to gave their lives in World War I?

I would have thought that this qoute from the original post

quote:
Eckington: There are also places; Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Ancient Monuments, War Memorials, and sites of Social or Community Interest where we think a virtual cache is appropriate. These we would approve.

Would have answered these questions for you. No one has suggested the sites you are defending are meaningless.

________________________

What is caches precious?

1.4k · September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tim & June:
An example, we rejected a virtual which simply consisted of obtaining the number on the side of a rubbish bin in a lay-by on a busy "A" road. It so happened that we knew the lay-by (it is close to home) and there is simply nothing there of any interest at all. No walk, no view, no historical info, simply a (usually overflowing) rubbish bin. Does that make a geocache ? I don't think so.

Ergh! Well done on rejecting that one.

What I am wondering is whether it would have been approved if it was a micro stuck to the bottom of the bin?

Would that suddenly make that a more worthwhile experience?

IMHO a naf cache is a naf cache whether it is a physical or a virtual. But am I out of step with everyone else here? Would the addition of tupperware make the place worthwhile?

I'm not attacking approvers (past or present) as the standard of UK caches is really rather high and is a credit to their work. I'm Just wondering if a physical can salvage a naf location in people opinion.

Chris

If only life had an undo button....

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

September 30, 2003

Team AshandEs said

I would have thought that this quote from the original post

Would have answered these questions for you. No one has suggested the sites you are defending are meaningless.

Eckington: There are also places; Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Ancient Monuments, War Memorials, and sites of Social or Community Interest where we think a virtual cache is appropriate. These we would approve.

what about this quote then.

quote:
Originally posted by Eckington:

Research is limited but we feel that in many USA urban areas virtual caches have become, perhaps, meaningless to a certain extent. Eckington and Lactodorum

1.7k · September 30, 2003

I'll try and keep this short whilst still attempting to get my point over!

GC.COM is in a continual process of evolution (Tautology? Possibly but you know what I mean) and the guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable change. What Eckington (and I) were trying to do with the original post was to outline where we stand today with regard to approving NEW caches.

Like it or not, the emphasis for GC.COM is the placing and finding of PHYSICAL caches. At present the guidelines are being re-written to support this emphasis. Hopefully they will be published very soon.

Although virtual caches MAY be approved we have to examine them carefully to see first of all whether a physical cache is possible. If it is, then the virtual is very unlikely to be approved.

Although I have only been in the approving game for a few weeks I'm delighted at the co-operation I have received when suggesting to cache submitters that their new cache could be converted from a virtual to a physical. Thank you all for that.

BUT..... in some circumstances a virtual is the most appropriate way to go and in those cases we would not hesitate to approve it. I can't give chapter and verse as to what is and is not appropriate, rather each one is dealt with on its merits between submitter and approver.

So if you feel there's a good reason why a cache should be a virtual, talk to us. Hopefully you'll find us reasonably flexible.

As for the micro under the bin scenario that's even more difficult. Why? Well if it meets the guidelines then really it ought to be approved. One thing we don't want to get involved in is a discussion as to what is and isn't a 'lame' cache. It's an argument impossible to win and we could, rightly, be accused of allowing our own prejudices sway us in the approval process.

So Chris, tupperware wouldn't improve the location but, unfortunately, it would probably have to be approved. Mind you, it would then be up to finders to log their opinions for subsequent cachers to bear in mind before they went for it

------------------------------

Chill out - I'm doing my best!

3.8k · September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Chris n Maria:
......Would the addition of tupperware make the place worthwhile?

Back in July I clambered up along the Stanage Edge to the High Neb trig point. What a place this is. It was totally deserted. I never saw another person all the time I was up there. The feeling of being ‘alone’ was awesome. I thought then that this would be a terrific place for a cache. Unfortunately, when I’m ‘off on one’ as my mates say and looking for Lonely Places, I don’t carry a fully loaded ammo box with me ‘just in case’. (A slight divergence here: Does anyone else just love the song ‘Where Ravens Feed’ by Martyn Wyndham-Read?)

I thought that there were enough interesting places along the route to make an acceptable ‘virtual’ cache and duly sorted it all out. Not wanting to create a cache and have it immediately archived, I contacted Eckington and explained to him just what I proposed. After an exchange of e-mails he decided that he wouldn’t be able to approve such a cache as a physical box could be hidden there. That was quite true and I have absolutely no problem at all with Eckington’s decision. As it was too far way from my ‘home turf’ for a traditional cache to be maintained, I scrubbed the idea.

I think it was a shame as I’m sure a lot of people need a reason to visit a place and a virtual cache would have given them a reason to visit just as much as a physical one. Anyone who’s been up there will know that an ammo can or Tupperware box hidden among the rocks would do absolutely nothing to enhance the pleasure of ‘just being there’.

However, as I said, this is NOT a ‘Knock the Approver’ posting and who knows… maybe the rules will be relaxed a little one day. If that time comes and nobody has placed a box up there in the meantime…..

John

Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability

September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by L8 Ed:
Team AshandEs said

I would have thought that this quote from the original post

Would have answered these questions for you. No one has suggested the sites you are defending are meaningless.

Eckington: There are also places; Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Ancient Monuments, War Memorials, and sites of Social or Community Interest where we think a virtual cache is appropriate. These we would approve.

what about this quote then.

quote:
Originally posted by Eckington:

Research is limited but we feel that in many USA urban areas virtual caches have become, perhaps, meaningless to a certain extent. Eckington and Lactodorum

I'm not sure how you want me to responsd to "what about this quote". Is it a rhetorical question or do you think I missed it? I don't really see how this quote adds or detracts form the point I was trying to make in any way. You may have to elaborate.

I was just pointing out that Eckington made it fairly clear that he doesn't think War Memorials are meaningless in response to Thorax asking "Is the memorial in Austin to the small town of Praha, Texas that lost an entire generation of young men during World War II (GCA80E) meaningless?"

I doubt anyone on this board regardless of their position on virtuals thinks War Memorials are meaningless. This what I was trying to point out and nothing more.

________________________

What is caches precious?

1.4k · September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Lactodorum:
As for the micro under the bin scenario that's even more difficult. Why? Well if it meets the guidelines then really it ought to be approved.

So Chris, tupperware wouldn't improve the location but, unfortunately, it would probably have to be approved. Mind you, it would then be up to finders to log their opinions for subsequent cachers to bear in mind before they went for it

I kind of thought that would be the answer - bit of a shame I suppose but approvers have enough problems already without having to judge the merits of whether each cache is worthwhile or not.

Cant agree more about reading the logs - somehow this log put me off visiting the cache!

Chris

If only life had an undo button....

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Lactodorum:
Like it or not, the emphasis for GC.COM is the placing and finding of PHYSICAL caches. At present the guidelines are being re-written to support this emphasis. Hopefully they will be published very soon.

Although virtual caches MAY be approved we have to examine them carefully to see first of all whether a physical cache is possible. If it is, then the virtual is very unlikely to be approved.

The new "no virtuals where you could hide a box" guideline is not a good one and a retrograde step in my view but our UK approvers are stuck with it. This change of emphasis is a rather unfortunate turn of events and one that is not being taken very well by many geocachers in the States.

The new geocaching.com anti-virtual stance takes no regard of these seasonal and geographic variations and that seems to be where a lot of the trouble lies. But as Thorax says, it’s Jeremy’s site and he can pretty much do what he like with it. It would be nice to have a situation where such fundamental decisions were somehow put to the vote rather than being imposed without representation but that’s the way things are.

This change takes no account of local conditions. I have been fortunate enough to have the opportunity of caching in a number of different US states and some have different situations to take into account than others.

I was in Minnesota in April last year and arrived to find that five inches of snow had just fallen. This made geocaching either amazingly difficult as all the caches were under the snow, or amazingly easy if you went after one that had been found by someone else since the snowfall. Follow the footsteps and look for where someone had been digging. Find cache - a doddle!!

Bearing in mind that Canada and the northernmost states of the US can be under snow for many months in the winter, virtuals give cachers in those places something to do in the winter.

Conversely, taking the southern states as an example, last month we were in Austin (whoo... co-incidence, huh??). The temperature was in the mid 90's at sunrise and over 100F for a large part of the day. It isn't much fun trekking up hills and bushwhacking through scrub in those temperatures, so again virtuals have their place. We did quite a lot of virtuals in the heat of the day and enjoyed pretty much all of them. From “The Tree that wouldn’t die” to “The Man who wouldn’t die”, we enjoyed them all and learned a huge amount about the history of the city and the state in a short amount of time. Now I find that these caches were “meaningless to a certain extent”. Wish we had known that before we wasted all that time doing them.

As for the reaction from some of the Texans on this thread, it’s hardly surprising. To imply that urban caches in the States were becoming “meaningless” and then singling out Austin for particular criticism was asking for trouble. I wonder how people on the UK forums would react if a US approver had made a similar comment in a US forum, “I’ve never been caching in the UK but I reckon that lots of their caches are crap”.

In my experience the people of Austin (did I tell you that we have just been there??), probably more than most, are passionately proud of their city and their state. They don’t have as long a history over there as we have in the UK, but they tend not to take it for granted quite as much as we do here.

Team AshandES were thrown a bit by one of the expressions used in a post further up this thread. Here’s another one for you. “If you poke a snake with a stick, don’t be surprised if it bites you in the a$s”. That would sum up Texans pretty good.

Have a good day, y’all.

------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

[This message was edited by Slytherin on September 30, 2003 at 05:18 AM.]

September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team AshandEs:
I doubt anyone on this board regardless of their position on virtuals thinks War Memorials are meaningless. This what I was trying to point out and nothing more.

________________________

What is caches precious?

Ok. Fair enough.

1k · September 30, 2003

Hi Guys,

“Research is limited but we feel that in many USA urban areas virtual caches have become, perhaps, meaningless to a certain extent. Eckington has never cached in the USA, nor is he likely to, but we have found that in some urban areas, for instance Austin, Texas, there is a plethora of virtual caches, 52 within 20 mile radius. There are similar numbers in other cities in New Jersey and in Illinois. This equates to 35 in Greater London (e & o e).”

This seems to be the paragraph from my original post that has provoked the most debate.

Let’s revisit some of the contentious phrases:

“……….in many USA urban areas virtual caches have become, perhaps, meaningless to a certain extent…….”

Please explain to me where I have said that most US urban caches are crap.

As far as I can see what I said was there was a possibility that some of the urban virtual caches could perhaps have little meaning.

“…….have found that in some urban areas, for instance Austin, Texas, there is a plethora of virtual caches, 52 within 20 mile radius. There are similar numbers in other cities in New Jersey and in Illinois……..”

Please explain to me where I have critisised the caches in Austin (or in New Jersey, or in Illinois). I feel that all I did was to make a statement about the number of virtual caches in this area.

I apologise without reservation to the good folk of Austin (and new Jersey and Illinois) this was just the area that I spent most time counting the number of caches, it could just as easily have been the people of any other large urban area that I needed to apologise to!

To thorax I would like to say:

“…….Eckington has never cached in the USA, nor is he likely to,…….”

I am afraid the chance of my visiting the States is remote. Mrs Eckington has a grave dislike of flying and I would not go away on Holiday without her.

However, I take up your offer of a beer and raise my virtual pint of cellar cooled Tetley’s Bitter in your direction and drink to your health and to all cachers in USofA!

(and that will probably start another row…..why Tetley’s isn’t Adnam’s, Shepherd Neame, Marston’s, Theakston’s, Morland’s, Breakspear’s etc. good enough? )

I have really enjoyed the standard of debate and the exchange of views my postings facilitated and am truly sorry for the misunderstandings and misinterpretation of some of my points, I look forward to reading more……….

Eckington

1.4k · September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Eckington:
However, I take up your offer of a beer and raise my virtual pint of cellar cooled Tetley’s Bitter in your direction and drink to your health and to all cachers in USofA!

Eckington

And what exactly is wrong with Black Sheep??

If only life had an undo button....

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:
The new "no virtuals where you could hide a box" guideline is not a good one . . .

Not wishing to be picky, but I'm concerned that this might mislead some. This is not a new guideline, it has been around for the best part of 12 months which is when I first really noticed it. Don't know when it actually came into being.

Tim & June (Winchester)

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

September 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tim & June:
Not wishing to be picky, but I'm concerned that this might mislead some. This is not a new guideline, it has been around for the best part of 12 months which is when I first really noticed it. Don't know when it actually came into being.

Tim & June (Winchester)

New or not. I still don't think it's a great idea.

------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

September 30, 2003

Almost, I'm tempted to hunt only virtual and micro caches....

I would like to see an (optional) automated visit-validation challenge/response option on the geocaching site. The cache owner could enter a challenge question (or series of questions) and the required answer(s) and the site would accept a found-it log only if the answers were correct. This could be used on any cache type if the owner so chose.

September 30, 2003

However, I take up your offer of a beer and raise my virtual pint of cellar cooled Tetley’s Bitter in your direction and drink to your health and to all cachers in USofA!

(and that will probably start another row…..why Tetley’s isn’t Adnam’s, Shepherd Neame, Marston’s, Theakston’s, Morland’s, Breakspear’s etc. good enough? )

Thank you for your post. And I too, is short order (well, one distinct advantage you have at your location is that the sun rises over the yardarm 6 hours prior to doing so here) will raise a pint to the northeast and drink to you and Mrs Eckington’s long live and happiness. My only quandary is whether it should be Live Oak Liberation or Beiiter End Sledgehammer Stout. Oh well, I guess it’ll be one of each then…..Sláinte!

1k · September 30, 2003

quote:
…..Sláinte!

Cheers Kidder!

Eckington

September 30, 2003

Just to add to the opinions, we've decided to only hunt physical caches this year (where our year starts 28th September). And we'll count meeting caches as well.

But no virtuals or reverse for us any more.

October 8, 2003

As a newbie, I wondered if the virtual caches have a .1 of a mile restriction placed on them. For example, if I was to set a virtual cache, and it was not possible to place a container because of area, or because permission was not able to be granted within a .1 of a mile radius. Would it be allowed even though a real cache could be placed lets say .2 of a mile away.

October 11, 2003

Well?

[This message was edited by Beatle Bones on October 11, 2003 at 08:46 AM.]

Approver's thoughts on Virtual Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation