Virtual or "Real" Cache

[+Metaphor]

Just wondering... if a "cache" (a canister, with a logbook, maintained by another organization, not a geocacher) is listed, should it be considered a virtual or a physical cache?

 

I was thinking of a series of off-trail hikes to climb the 3500' peaks in the NY Catskills that I almost finished when I lived there in the 1980's. Each of these trailless peaks had a canister attached to a tree (above the snowline) which was maintained by the Catskill 3500' Club. A similar club exists in the Adirondacks for the 4000' peaks (trail/trailless). I looked through the maps and found a dearth of caches in the Catskills, then checked the post, and found some reasons for their absence. Now, if these caches were to be listed by their coordinates in the geocaching format, would they be virtuals ("Hey, I was there") or physical ("Hey, I signed the log book- TNLN") even though the owner of the Geocache would not be the owner of the physical log?

 

I was thinking of a winter project -- extrapolating the coordinates from MapBlast and posting them as caches (also an added incentive to go back and log the last four peaks I hadn't climbed before I moved). There are thirty-four such peaks, and to be a bona-fide member of the 3500' Club, one must have climbed all thirty-four, plus four specific peaks in the winter. All would easily be rated 4/4+, but most are as hard as they get -- not for the run-of-the mill cacher. I don't think I would reclimb them all to get the coordinates, as all canisters are visible and placed at the peak's summit, (and I live 300 miles away now) but if anyone were to care to check, my real name would be in the 3500' Club archives from 1981-85, and I wouldn't list a cache in which I didn't physically write in the log.

 

Conversely, should any Catskill Cacher wish to take on this idea, cool. For me, it would be killing two birds with the same stone, as I have always planned to get back up there to complete the climbs. Any thoughts?

 

"All of us are standing in the mud, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde

[+briansnat]

I'm very familiar with the Catskill 3,500 club cannisters, having bagged about half of the peaks and signed in on several cannisters. One question I've had since I heard that Geocaching wasn't allowed in the Catskills is, 'what exactly is the difference between a Geocache and one of these cannisters?'. The few that I found had herd paths beaten to them. Are these cannisters abandoned property? Are they litter? Do they impact the area where they are placed?

 

Realistically speaking, Geocaches are not any different from one of these cannisters,yet the park authorities have allowed the cannisters for many years. This only demonstrates the myopia of the authorities here. They've allowed the practice of "Geocaching" for many years, albeit without GPSr's. In fact they've encouraged visits to these cannisters. But if someone from the Geocaching community wants to place something similar, then its "no dice".

 

As far as your question as to whether this is a real cache or virtual, that's a difficult one. There is an object to find and a logbook to sign. But the object was not placed by the cache owner. I'd say there is a good argument for either, but I'd lean towards making it a virtual. I say this simply because you won't be able to check to logbook to verify finds if you are so inclined. I guess you can have the finder describe the container and its contents to verify

that they visited the site.

 

Your idea of using Mapblast to figure out the coordinates from afar and posting the cache is probably not a good one. If you make a mistake you'll be sending a Geocacher on a long and difficult hike with bad coordinates. But I do like the idea in general of somehow using these cannisters as caches.

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on August 27, 2002 at 04:40 AM.]

[+Renegade Knight]

Good points. Geocaches are not abandoned property any more then the benchmarks that are placed by the government. However the abandoned property law was written loose enough to cover geocaching in fact though not intent.

 

The environmentalist movment has created a backlash against humanity. It's no longer 'cool' to be human and be outside your designated concrete jungle.

 

As for the cache idea... that's a rather specialised club. The closest I'll ever get is to join the 5280 ft high club. To post these it would be best to call it a virtual and maybe have them sign the log book and confirm the last person who signed or something else as the test.

[+Nurse Dave]

* Virtual caches - A cache is actually an existing landmark, such as a tombstone or statue. You have to answer a question from the landmark and let the "cache" owner know as proof that you were there.

 

They would have to report something other than t/l nothing.

 

Should the top of every mountain be a virtual cache?

 

---I will stand out, I am a raven in the snow.

[+sbell111]

This is kind of freaky. I was thinking about this very issue a few days ago.

 

I think that it would be a 'real' cache because there is a log book to sign. It doesn't matter that the log book isn't placed by the person who creates the cache page.

 

I do think that it would be important to physically verify the coordinates and that the log is still present before creating the cache page.

[+Metaphor]

All reasonable suggestions. My Winter/Spring long weekend mission is now to get my boots back up to the Catskills and test the theory, using the 3500' canisters as log books. (there are about 14 off-trail canisters) If I can, I will get at least one of the three bushwhacks with canisters I have haven't climbed (Friday, Balsam Cap or Sherrill) before next summer. The others, without canisters, wouldn't be good virtuals, as there is nothing verifiable to log in -- a view, a trail, a certain tree?

 

Can anyone in the area help out and expand the off-trail canister count? (Besides some fine hiking, another excuse to get me back to a pretty cool area of the NE)

 

"All of us are standing in the mud, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde

[+briansnat]

There are some very old and interesting rock carvings on Thomas Cole Mtn that could be used to verify a find there.

 

I know of two virtual caches, one by Katterskill Falls and one near the old Mountain House site by North Lake that use the old rock carvings as verification.

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

[ManaUser]

You could always just make it a http://www.geocaching.com/images/cache_types/8.gif cache.

 

But otherwise, I'd say it's closer to a virtual. Even though you sign a log, it's still not a "Traditional Cache", the other option, since it doesn't have items to trade.

[+ooga booga]

Just last week I visited the Too Bizarre cache in Kansas (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=27348). It's a cache where you record your visit on a previously existing logbook sitting outside at the cemetery. In the eyes of the hider, at least, it's considered a virtual, even though there's been a logbook on the site for close to 15 years now.

[+ooga booga]

Just last week I visited the Too Bizarre cache in Kansas (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=27348). It's a cache where you record your visit on a previously existing logbook sitting outside at the cemetery. In the eyes of the hider, at least, it's considered a virtual, even though there's been a logbook on the site for close to 15 years now.

[+ooga booga]

Ack...my link is doing strange things. Try this:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=27348