Virts..again!!

October 11, 2003

What a bunch of b****cks!…virts are and should be welcomed as they allow people with perhaps a disablement who can’t and don’t perhaps have the ability to manage a short or longish walk to capture caches and see various areas of interest and enjoy the hobby/sport also.

As an example, Evilroosters virt around Edinburgh is a classic! I can’t wait to do it! even if I don’t manage it soon, it is simply a pleasure, and fascinating read, all told.

I would regard it as a benchmark for any other virt caches to follow, and perhaps the approvers should take note

Also Pooters (Electric Brae) and jstead’s (Brig o’ Doon) on the West coast are perhaps not so complex, but definitely also worth a visit…w/o much effort, but well worth the visit!.

I do however see the need to curtail the number of insignificant virts that are being conjured up and that would eventually lead to a non descript object of relatively little significance to the general masses. Without real relevance, whether it be history, geography, art, architecture etc. etc. these virts are a waste of time. .. I did one recently and the co-ords were all wrong too boot.

My feelings as regards caching are that the fundamental essences are not particularly the finding of the cache, but the challenge of getting there, seeing and enjoying different places of interest …… an old saying being that the best part of a holiday is the travelling!

Regards DD

DeputyDawg

As an aside…. there are a few physical caches that I’d rather not to have found equally!!…At least you can take your family to a virt. with reasonable safety!

1k · October 11, 2003

IMHO you have just outlined many of the thoughts both pro and con virts!

Lactodorum and myself examine each virt with an open mind and apply the current GC.com guidelines as best we can.

What more can we say?

Eckington

October 11, 2003

DD,

Thanks for your comments on my Burke & Hare cache. I hope you do get a chance to try it out sometime!

I am not hugely happy with the move against virtuals in GC.com as a whole...I think the tendency toward over-regulating the game may strangle it in the end. On the other hand, these things are often a pendulum. Maybe we'll see a swing back in time.

I also wish there were some way to limit the number of low-quality physical caches. I think I've been extremely lucky in my hunting, in that I haven't found a dud yet, but I do hear of some pretty bad ones out there. And I have had someone leave porn in one of my placements, which cannot (by definition) happen for a virt. As DD points out.

I have to say that I really appreciate the attitude Lactodorum and Eckington have taken toward the whole thing. Pragmatic, honest, and co-operative. I haven't tried to submit a virt under the new rules (no inspiration, no time to research with a baby on the way), but I do believe that I'd get a fair shake from them if I did.

Thanks, guys, for improving what otherwise feels like a really unfriendly atmosphere for fans of virts!

evilrooster

http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com

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

October 12, 2003

Originally posted by Eckington:
IMHO you have just outlined many of the thoughts both pro and con virts!

Lactodorum and myself examine each virt with an open mind and apply the current GC.com guidelines as best we can.

What more can we say?

Eckington[/i'm sure that you both do and I do appreciate that, but was of the impression that the anti-virt pendulum was swinging in such a way that would dissuade many cachers from creating new ones. I was mearly adding my support in relation to good virts. Regards DD

October 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by evilrooster:
And I have had someone leave porn in one of my placements, which cannot (by definition) happen for a virt.

Well, I've seen some pretty explicit graffiti out there sometimes

There seems to be a gradual move on GC.com to separate out the different types of caches. Benchmarks have always been separate and Jeremy's said that locationless caches are going to be separated out completely. I wouldn't be surprised if he did the same thing to virtuals sooner or later.

GeocacheUK - resources for the UK Geocaching community.

October 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:

quote:
Originally posted by evilrooster:
And I have had someone leave porn in one of my placements, which cannot (by definition) happen for a virt.

Well, I've seen some pretty explicit graffiti out there sometimes

Actually, considering some of the areas that my Burke & Hare cache takes you near...hm. At least I *didn't* end it at the Burke & Hare lapdancing bar, as one of my finders suggested.

quote:
There seems to be a gradual move on GC.com to separate out the different types of caches. Benchmarks have always been separate and Jeremy's said that locationless caches are going to be separated out completely. I wouldn't be surprised if he did the same thing to virtuals sooner or later.

In that case, I wish he could leave the status quo until the new functionality was ready. As it stands, these cache types just get stuck in different degrees of limbo.

evilrooster

http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com

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

October 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by DeputyDawg:
What a bunch of b****cks!…virts are and should be welcomed as they allow people with perhaps a disablement who can’t and don’t perhaps have the ability to manage a short or longish walk to capture caches and see various areas of interest and enjoy the hobby/sport also.

!

i agree totally but as my question has remained unanswered who cares.

October 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Beatle Bones:
i agree totally but as my question has remained unanswered who cares.

Which question? This one, from another thread?

quote:
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.

I didn't answer because I expected an admin or approver to, but in their absence, the answer is YES. The .1 mile restriction applies to both virtual and traditional caches. So if you have a cache, virt or trad, in a given location, then nothing can be placed within a .1 mile radius circle of it.

So you could place something .1 mile + 1 foot away, but no closer...

Hope that helps.

evilrooster

http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com

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

October 15, 2003

Thank you for the reply Evilrooster at least I know there is someone out there. What I would like to do is a set a virtual cache.

There is no possibility of a real cache in the area for about 1000ft but a box could be placed around 2000ft away without a problem. Would my virtual cache be allowed under these circumstances or would the fact that I could place a container 2000ft away disallow my virtual.

The reason is I don’t want to go through all the setting up process only to have it rejected on the above point.

I did expect a reply from an approver but I suppose they are to busy to answer questions form someone who has not done any Geocaching yet. I asked the question as virtual cache's seem to be more interesting to do and less hassle to set as no permission has to be gained from landowners.

Don

1k · October 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Beatle Bones:

I did expect a reply from an approver but I suppose they are to busy to answer questions form someone who has not done any Geocaching yet.

Don

Hi Guys,

Firstly may I apologise to Beatle Bones for an obvious breakdown in communications via the GC.com e-mal bot.

On two occasions ( 11/10/2003 @ 21.40BST and 14/10/2003 @ 16.30 BST) I have sent the following message to him through his profile:

"Hi Guy,

Eckington from UK admin here.

I was hoping someone other than an approver/moderator would answer your

query in the first instance.

This would have opened up the discussion more, and generated more points

of view.

I can give you the sort of "official" answer. I hope you do not mind me

doing it this way, but it will save an awful lot of public repetition!

The answer is quite simple. Any cache that is set has to be at least 0.1

miles from any other cache. It does not matter if they are traditional,

micro or virtual. Imagine every cache has a 528 ft radius exclusion zone

around it. This is one of the reasons the powers that be at GC.com are

trying to make it more difficult to get a virtual cache approved, it means

that at a later date no one can hide a physical box within the said 0.1

miles.

As far as Lactodorum and my self are concerned we do tend to be a little

bit more flexible on virtuals than the approvers are in the USA, but only a

little. We judge each case on its merits, but the onus is on the setter to

persuade us that a physical cannot live in the locality. We tend to check

the locus with maps and sometimes I think Lactodorum looks at aerial photos.

We do take some convincing!!

I hope this answers your query, if not post me at the address shown at the

bottom and I will try to expand.

Cheers and Cache Well,

Eckington"

Hope the situation is now clarified, both as to the original query and as to the apparent lack of approver response.

Cheers

Eckington

October 15, 2003

Thanks Eckington,

I got the mail in the end.

I can see how the position would be checked and understand this but how about permission from landonwners?

Ok lets me give a hypothetical.

I propose an interesting cache

This cache is a virtual and for 200ft a traditional cache would not be possible due to terrain. From 200ft to 1000ft permission for a traditional cache would not be granted. Beyond 1000ft a traditional cache could be placed.

I am not asking if you would allow this as it is hypothetical but would this be looked on as can’t see any problems or put a traditional cache at 1000ft away you can’t have the virtual. In other words am I wasting my time setting it up?

Don

October 15, 2003

The fewer Verts we have the better if you ask me - u didnt but it aont stopping me saying it.

I HATE Virts, i really do (and that is why i have only done 2 and i only did those to get them off the top of my nearest cache list)

1.4k · October 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by lathama:
The fewer Verts we have the better if you ask me - u didnt but it aont stopping me saying it.

I HATE Virts, i really do (and that is why i have only done 2 and i only did those to get them off the top of my nearest cache list)

Agreed!

I dont do locationless caches, and I dont want those who do do them (and enjoy themselves) to do them anymore - lets get rid of those.

Personally I loath micros - lets ban them.

Oh and multis - far too much walking - lets do away with them.

Webcam caches - whats all that about? lets do away with those as well.

Event caches - you shouldnt be able to claim a find for those. After all its only visiting a pub.

Oh, I nearly forgot - unknown/surprise caches - they have to go. How do I know if its not going to be a micro at the end of it! far better to know what you are looking for.

as for travelbugs.......

Chris

If only life had an undo button....

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

1k · October 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Beatle Bones:

Ok lets me give a hypothetical.

I propose an interesting cache

This cache is a virtual and for 200ft a traditional cache would not be possible due to terrain. From 200ft to 1000ft permission for a traditional cache would not be granted. Beyond 1000ft a traditional cache could be placed.

I am not asking if you would allow this as it is hypothetical but would this be looked on as can’t see any problems or put a traditional cache at 1000ft away you can’t have the virtual. In other words am I wasting my time setting it up?

Don

Hi Don,

If it were put to me in this way I think my suggestion would be that you use the virt as a starting point, publish the co-ords from this on your cache page. You then require the finder to get information from the virt, a number or a set of numbers, or the clue to a number, that they can insert into a set of co-ords in the format:

N 5A BC.31D W 0E 25.FGH

Where the letters are obviously the digits derived from your virt, and the co-ords are those of a physical cache at the possible location 1000+ feet away.

You have brought the cacher to an interesting location and, hopefully broadened their horizons with your virt clue, but have also lead them to a physical box. Everyone is satisfied, I hope !

You the call it a multi-cache or offset cache and its, hypothetically of course, OK (assuming the final location is not within 0.1 miles of another cache!)

Cheers,

Eckington

October 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Chris n Maria:

Event caches - you shouldnt be able to claim a find for those. After all its only visiting a pub.

Chris

If only life had an undo button....

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

Goodness gracious me yes, especially those that are miles from the nearest tube, have hidden ponds and stones in stumps, are up the top of trackless banks in woods, and where the bacon butties are so deliciously cholesterol full they must be lethal.

dodgydaved

I'm NOT lost, I know exactly where I am, I'm here!

October 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by lathama:
I HATE Virts, i really do

We did a really nice virtual on our first ever day's geocaching, so I'm actually quite pro-virtuals. Ironically, though, Eckington would have to reject that virtual under the current rules.

quote:
Originally posted by Chris n Maria
Oh and multis - far too much walking - lets do away with them.

I suppose for consistency we should also ban any cache which is more than a mile from the road.

The real problem, though, is caches which are too easy. I did one virtual that I didn't even have to get out of the car for!!! Shouldn't be allowed! Anything less than half a mile from a road should be archived.

And could the approvers please archive the "Don't look down" series before someone gets hurt. Far too dangerous!

While you're at it, could you please archive Soldier's Lump, 'cos I slipped over and got my clothes muddy.

And can anyone please explain why we allow diff=1 terr=1 caches? Where's the challenge in that? Shouldn't be allowed!

GeocacheUK - resources for the UK Geocaching community.

October 15, 2003

Originally posted by Teasel:
......And can anyone please explain why we allow diff=1 terr=1 caches? Where's the challenge in that? Shouldn't be allowed!.....

QUOTE]

Oh, come on! The Hornet, (Dad), would only be on 25 found if that were the case! Be reasonable!

October 15, 2003

How about banning people who have found more than 100 caches. Greedy pigs.

Oh yeah and people who type fast as I can only read slowly.

October 15, 2003

Originally posted by The Spokes:
How about banning people who have found more than 100 caches. Greedy pigs.

Oh yeah and people who type fast as I can only read slowly.

[/QI agree with The Spokes, lets ban also those who are unable to travel or have a vowel in their name and any that are dog owners……I’m included then!.

Geocaching should never be the singular purist pursuit for those who are upwardly mobile and fit. It should try to provide an interest and cater for all ages, and of all physical and mental abilities, children to pensioners alike. This is a wide spectrum to involve, I have to agree, but nearly all other hobbies/sports bodies attempt to, and do try to accommodate this.

Geocaching can do this, but requires everyone to realise the needs and requirements of all groups in society.

This means basically that if you, as a hypothetically ‘fit hill walking type of person of appx. 25 years age’ resents, what you regard, as the so called claiming of ‘easy-ish access’ virt caches (which, incidentally, could be safer for your child….or your grandmother/father! ) and are wanting to exclude some of these virts, because of the apparent lack of effort required to locate the object, then, in my opinion you should think again!.

This philosophy is simply going to undermine the whole ethos of Geocaching, which should be open to every group of society.

From personal experience, I’d rather have a guided tour, by way of multi cache with highlights around an unknown city, with history attached, than one plastic container with damp items and no info therein in and wondering where next to go!

Bottom line……esp. to the hard liners whose ambition in life is only to find boxes for their count!

GC has the unique ability to accommodate all tastes, so open your eyes and appreciate other people’s perspectives and limitations and try to put yourself in an incapacicitated state by way of health or age, young or old. If its to tame…try the many ‘treasure hunting sites’ on the web…and if your not happy sign up to be an approver/moderator…I wouldn’t do that ever!….respect to anyone who throws him/herself into this!!!

Regards to All,

DD

UOTE]

[This message was edited by DeputyDawg on October 15, 2003 at 06:49 PM.]

[This message was edited by DeputyDawg on October 15, 2003 at 06:52 PM.]

October 15, 2003

See Below!

[This message was edited by DeputyDawg on October 16, 2003 at 03:48 AM.]

October 15, 2003

Originally posted by lathama:
The fewer Verts we have the better if you ask me - u didnt but it aont stopping me saying it.

I HATE Virts, i really do (and that is why i have only done 2 and i only did those to get them off the top of my nearest cache list)

[/Q [/if you regarded these virts with such disdain as you do you wouldn't even consider trying to eliminate them from the top of your list and simply just ignore them!...in other words you obviousley still felt the need to 'do' them? i.e. in condradiction to what you say, they actually meant something to you..bad ,good or whatever...or am I wrong?...DD QUOTE]

UOTE]

[This message was edited by DeputyDawg on October 15, 2003 at 07:59 PM.]

1.3k · October 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Chris n Maria:
Event caches - you shouldnt be able to claim a find for those. After all its only visiting a pub.

That would rule out our upcoming pub crawl cache... gonna have to be difficulty 5 though regardless of how we hide the final cache as people will have problems finding it after visiting 10 pubs we think!

Funny thread though... thanks all... we don't do virtuals, others do... thats cool.

Cheers,

Emily & Neil

October 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Eckington:

If it were put to me in this way I think my suggestion would be that you use the virt as a starting point, publish the co-ords from this on your cache page. You then require the finder to get information from the virt, a number or a set of numbers, or the clue to a number, that they can insert into a set of co-ords in the format:

Eckington

Shame I did not want to go to the problems of getting a box and finding things to go in it and then finding a suitable hiding place getting permission and placing the cache. I realise that I may get (well if you don’t like it, then Geocaching is not for you.) reply.

But it looked at first that virtuals were part of the game and I was quite taken by that aspect.

Especially as the dark nights are upon us and searching in the undergrowth in the dark must make it harder to find a hidden box.

Don

Virts..again!!

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

Join the conversation