The virtues of a virtual cache

February 28, 2003

I posted a new virtual cache yesterday but it's been disallowed in favor of leaving the area for me or someone else to put a micro or other tangible cache in place. My site is in a very busy location along False Creek in Vancouver - just steps from a couple of very popular (to the locals anyway) coffee bars and a community centre and on the bike path around the Creek. It is centered on a large photo based sculpture that a lot of out of town visitors would otherwise miss. I want to argue the case that it is an appropriate location for a virtual cache and that "using up" this area within a .1 mile radius by placing this cache here would be appropriate. The "skill testing" question I posed to verify visits to the site would require visitors to read the accompanying historical texts referring to the photographs. Any thoughts?

February 28, 2003

Mary, why not make it a Micro? I am just about to head out the door to look for #6 in your False Creek Micro Series down at Science World. Your Micros are all hidden in brilliant locations in an area of Vancouver that is the one, if not the, most densely populated urban settings in the North America. They all involve a lot of clever searching and covert approaches to remain undetected.

You could have 100 caches in this compact 2 km square area and they would all be completely different and unique. Not sure if the density issue was a concern to the approver, but they must recognize that False Creek is a unique area unlike any other.

I think I know the exact spot you are thinking of for the Virtual. Please make it a Micro and we'll be all over it.

February 28, 2003

I would hate to see any virtuals that share historical information of the area denied in favor of waiting for a micro cache to be placed in the area. Some of my favorite caches have taken me to areas of historical significance. I enjoy learning about the history of areas my geocaching adventures take me to. I don't see why it should matter what type of cache it is. I hope the approver reconsiders and approves your cache.

Lake Tahoe Geocacher

24.7k · February 28, 2003

If the area is high traffic and gives a good chance of having the cache plundered. That's your argument for a virtual.

I had a micro plundered because it was alongside a road. The spot iself was interesting, but it didn't have the kind of info needed to make it into VC.

Wherever you go there you are.

1.4k · February 28, 2003

I'm familiar with the area and agree that it's very high traffic area and even a micro could be plundered. You should be able to specify whatever kind of log system you want for this location.

BTW: The rest of your False Creek series is great (even with one virtual).

February 28, 2003

What's the big difference between a well 'placed' virtual and a micro, other than a physical log at the site (which is likely to be discovered and plundered).

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

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

February 28, 2003

This site is supposed to be a database of geocaches, not a database of Interesting places, Interesting monuments/sculptures, Interesting historical markers etc.

If its an interesting place you want to lead someone, post it over on www.waypoint.org which IS a database of Interesting things.

As virtual caches by definition don't actually have a cache, which is what this activity was created to hunt, there needs to be compelling reasons to qualify as more than just a point-of-interest (POI). If there is a great hunt or hike involved, well then perhaps a virtual might qualify. But a drive-by location, or as this cache owner states ...just steps from a couple of very popular (to the locals anyway) coffee bars and a community centre and on the bike path around the Creek..., just doesn't meet the requirements of a VC to me.

As the guidelines state, a view is a view, a park is a park, and to paraphrase, a sculpture is a sculpture, not a cache.

__________________

-Alan

February 28, 2003

They don't give you a place to "sell" your idea of a cache. IE I have special permission to put a cache here by the town rec department, etc.

This is relevant to a virtual, because you don't want the cache description to spoil the suprise. Yet the admin in charge of reviewing it for approval wouldn't know what makes the spot special. I think they need an "additional comments" section when you submit a cache for approval.

AchStone

9.1k · February 28, 2003

You can put a "sales pitch" in your cache description or as a note log, when submitting your cache to the admin for approval. Just say "NOTE TO APPROVER - PLEASE DELETE" to flag the text.

Of course, that does nothing to help with application of the rules. Sounds like this hider can argue the merits of the historic photograph sculpture all she wants, but it won't be approved (at least not by wicacher). Yet last month, under the new tighter rules, a driveby virtual for another sculpture is approved by a different approver without any question or having to debate its merits in the forums. As a lawyer, my opinion is that standards are fine, but apply the rules CONSISTENTLY.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

I was formerly employed by the Department of Redundancy Department, but I don't work there anymore.

February 28, 2003

quote:
This site is supposed to be a database of geocaches, not a database of Interesting places, Interesting monuments/sculptures, Interesting historical markers etc. . . . As the guidelines state, a view is a view, a park is a park, and to paraphrase, a sculpture is a sculpture, not a cache.

But how do you know this isn't something of interest to a great many people? As the rules further state: . . .the cache "hider” creates a virtual cache at a location where physical caches are not permitted. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit. . . .A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects.

It would appear that a physical cache would be pretty impossible in this area due to high traffic. Personally, I'd just as soon track down some interesting item that I can learn something from than tromp through the woods looking for a tupperware container a 100 times over. If I need the exercise that bad, I'll hop on the treadmill at home and watch the Discovery Channel on TV while I exercise.

What is the obsession over finding a piece of tupperware anyway? Maybe I have repressed anger over attending one too many tupperware parties to be objective, but to me, finding either a physical and virtual cache can be a very satisfying experience.

February 28, 2003

wicatcher writes:

"This site is supposed to be a database of geocaches, not a database of Interesting places, Interesting monuments/sculptures, Interesting historical markers etc."

I wish to disagree,

this IS a site for listing points of interest. See guideline #2 on: http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp where you can find the following:

"A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects."

Swanlakers

7.2k · February 28, 2003

Another consideration is the other 6 caches within one mile of the new submission, 5 of which are traditional caches.

The Nearby Caches

It seemed easy enough to put 5 other traditional caches within the one-mile area. The plaque can be used in a multi-cache and you still get to see this historic location. Plus you make it more of a puzzle and a more exciting challenge.

You can "sell" you idea to the admin. Just send them an email.

February 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Swanlakers:

I wish to disagree,

this IS a site for listing points of interest. See guideline #2 on: http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp where you can find the following:

"A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects."

Swanlakers

I guess what is worthy is subject to them. I have a 5 foot survey marker placed in 1877 that once marked the US border that is apparently NOT worthy of a virtual cache because it is in a National Forest. Even though I can't get permission to place one there.

I'm all for another virtual cache database. I don't see it happening but I think they have there place.

I used to not like them at all, and thought many were pointless and hasty. Yet I've slowly come to apprieciate what the virtual cache has to offer.

beatnik

3.1k · February 28, 2003

Still the closest cache to the new one is .3 miles away. Not so bad. I myself hate multi stage caches. I love virtuals and they are perfect for tourist caches. After all isn't it nice to leave something behind for the locals as a thank you?

What we're doing out in Oregon is doing a basic virtual then placing a micro with a log not very far away, yet in an area that's easier to conceal a micro. Sometimes is a couple of hundred feet, sometimes longer. But the mods in the northwest seem to approve all of those.

Sadly the larger an activity grows the more rules we end up with. Still I shouldn't complain. When I started it took me a year to get 22 finds. I've had 64 this year so far and haven't had to work real hard for most of them. Thank goodness cause those gas prices are scary.

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

1.4k · February 28, 2003

My suggestion would be to make it a micro, but when the micro-container gets plundered, change it into a virtual.

7.2k · February 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by beatnik:
I guess what is worthy is subject to them. I have a 5 foot survey marker placed in 1877 that once marked the US border that is apparently NOT worthy of a virtual cache because it is in a National Forest. Even though I can't get permission to place one there.

beatnik

The National Forest does allow Geocaches in the general forest areas. They do not allow caches in Wilderness Areas. I have had many discussions with the Forest Service Southern Region and they do allow them. You should ask the supervisor for OK. I have a cache in the National Forest right now, it was approved by them, and I know of several others.

February 28, 2003

Although most views on the subject of virtuals have already been aired there is one concern no one seems to be aware of - that is the damage virtual caches can do.

As someone who has approached three park organizations with a prepared formal proposal to request that geocaching be allowed I can tell you that park managers are becoming aware of virtual caches. They are not only aware of them but view them as more palatable alternatives to physical caches in their parks. This makes it harder to convince them to allow physical caches.

I won't belabor what this will eventually result in as cache density increases and more of us are having to "sell" the idea of geocaching to park managers.

Be careful of what you ask for - - - eventually that may be all you'll have to hunt.

~erik~

March 1, 2003

(concern no one seems to be aware of - that is the damage virtual caches can do)

What damage can virtual caches do?

1.6k · March 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by pdumas:
(concern no one seems to be aware of - that is the damage virtual caches can do)

What damage can virtual caches do?

I think he was talking about the damage to the game. Some parks might require only virtuals and that would change the game. As more and more officials only allow virtuals, the game is damaged.

Not that I was trying to put words in Erik's mouth, but that's what I got from it.

CR

March 1, 2003

Thanks CR:

I've got a better understanding and I agree with you both.

1.6k · March 1, 2003

You know, I was just thinking. (Yeah, I can hear some of you saying, "for a change." ) But, every place I've looked at the thought in my mind has been, "how can I hide a really cool cache here." It hasn't been, "I want people to come here."

I think it's a mindset thing. Not saying it's wrong, but IMHO a virtual should only be because there is absolutely no way to incorporate the spot into a physical cache of some kind AND I really think people should take a look at whatever the spot is.

I fully realise it has to do with what part of the game you enjoy. For me, it's the hunt. So, I tend to think along the same lines for the hide. For others, it's the interesting spots, so they think along those lines for the hide.

So, just as I have to make myself more aware of putting my caches in interesting spots, the "Spots" have to think more about the hide.

Simply make the virtual an offset and your done. We've done offsets that we had to travel for miles to get the physical cache. The ending cache doesn't have to be right there.

Hope this helps!

CR

March 1, 2003

quote:
Not that I was trying to put words in Erik's mouth, but that's what I got from it.

Yes, thank you for the translation.

I have nothing against well thought out virtual caches and have hunted some that I truly enjoyed. However my point was that placing them in locations that can support a traditional cache will come back to haunt us later. The idea of using the virtual as step one in an offset or multistage hunt is an excellent compromise, IMHO.

~erik~

March 1, 2003

~erik~

Yes, I agree with you

Mike

March 1, 2003

Virtual cache, a micro cache, and regular cache, should all be placed under same rules. Not deigning one type for another because of the approvers preference or that a location "screams" for a particular type of cache in "one persons" opinions.

What I don't understand is a location less cache, how can one find something that has a location close to arbitrary and there is not something physicaly identifiable that can be seen, or touched at all times. Some thing that moves as a auto that may or may not park in a parking lot at any given time is not my idea of what a cache should be.

Dale

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

I'm Diagonally Parked, In A Parallel Universe.

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

2.7k · March 1, 2003

quote:
However my point was that placing them in locations that can support a traditional cache will come back to haunt us later.

~erik~

Between the purported damaging effects of virtuals, and now the haunting, how in the hell is a virtual going to hurt us in the future of this game.

It shouldn't make any difference if one Cacher puts a virtual at the entrance to a Park, while another cacher puts a micro or traditional within the park.

I totally agree that a virtual can be linked to help create a mult-stage cache. But they can stand by alone until someone designs a good traditional.

It shouldn't make any difference if I use some words or numbers off another cachers virtuals to help create a traditional cache of my own.

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

7.2k · March 1, 2003

Dale_Lynn, they cannot be placed under the same rules. They are by definition different. There must be some form of verification for a virtual target for there to be a challenge and to know that you found what the cache creator is sending you to. You then email the cache creator. Your verification for a traditional cache is finding the container and signing the logbook. Virtual cache requirements are covered on the requirements page.

Someone just recently emailed me about one of my virtual caches and was WAY off. I could tell he had not been there and he did not get credit for the cache. He never wrote back.

This is not a discussion regarding locationless caches, and what you describe is against the requirements anyway.

7.2k · March 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tahosa:
Between the purported damaging effects of virtuals, and now the _haunting_, how in the (deleted expletive) is a virtual going to hurt us in the future of this game.

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
I think he was talking about the damage to the game. Some parks might require only virtuals and that would change the game. As more and more officials only allow virtuals, the game is damaged.

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:I have nothing against well thought out virtual caches and have hunted some that I truly enjoyed. However my point was that placing them in locations that can support a traditional cache will come back to haunt us later. The idea of using the virtual as step one in an offset or multistage hunt is an excellent compromise, IMHO.

There is you answer right there.

quote:
Originally posted by Tahosa:
It shouldn't make any difference if one Cacher puts a virtual at the entrance to a Park, while another cacher puts a micro or traditional within the park.

I totally agree that a virtual can be linked to help create a mult-stage cache. But they can stand by alone until someone designs a good traditional.

If you can place a traditional cache, then you can make a multi-cache with a traditional at the end instead of a virtual. You do have to work at it a little more.

quote:
Originally posted by Tahosa:
It shouldn't make any difference if I use some words or numbers off another cachers virtuals to help create a traditional cache of my own.

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

It would be nice if you could be original and creative and make a new cache, though, rather than having to copy part of something that someone else has already used. Once again, you have to work a little more at it.

March 1, 2003

quote:
Yes, thank you for the translation.

I have nothing against well thought out virtual caches and have hunted some that I truly enjoyed. However my point was that placing them in locations that can support a traditional cache will come back to haunt us later. The idea of using the virtual as step one in an offset or multistage hunt is an excellent compromise, IMHO.

~erik~

for once, i agree with erik. if the distance between the two isnt too too far. however, we should take care to allow virtuals in situations where they are warrented and desirable. i dont see what the problem is with having a virtual at a location that is deserving and a physical cache placed by someone else nearby.

SR and dboggny.

March 1, 2003

Isn't this sport/hobby suppose to be enjoyable? Aren't Admins suppose to Mentor us on the proper rules instead of a few that dictate? (I have several Admins that I call Mentors because they do put forth ideas and helps in a friendly/helpful fashion)

Example..

I was down in Florida enjoying my stay when I had one of my caches in Disney causing a problem.. seems a Disney employee also geocaches.. and I was told by a few local cachers that this person claimed the area as his/her own.. wrote me a nasty, but polite private email, which I then attempted to still share this area with other cachers and turned it into a virtual. Well, low and behold, this Disney employee/cacher wanted me out and succeeded.

But what ticks me off is that an Admin from Wisconsin deleted a log that another geocacher posted on the now archived cache in Florida. What reason behind this delete?? All it stated was that they enjoyed the area and didn't understand why it couldn't have stayed as a virtual. And then I heard of how this poster thought it was I being RUDE (thinking that I was the one to delete the log and in the emails that continued between the two).. I think that Admins shouldn't be deleting logs that are not offensive.. it's hard to understand all these flexible rules that are being bent in favortisms.

If virtuals are that much of a hassle and conflict with SOME old geocachers.. either deny/delete/destroy all or Place them in a new Catagory like Benchmarks are... but instead we are told to list them on another website because the rules got tighter over here. That no one wants to see a beautiful artwork or historical plaque .. that we 'virtual' lovers are ruining the sport. My god.. I've walked away from so many geocache 'normal' container hides that ruined the area with volunteer trails..

My motto has always been "if it stops being fun.. stop doing it".. don't make me stop enjoying geocaching because of all this bickering and backstabbing..

All I wanted to do was share an enjoyable/historical/FREE area in Disney with others..

~The Lil Otter

March 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
Dale_Lynn, they cannot be placed under the same rules. They are by definition different. There must be some form of verification for a virtual target for there to be a challenge and to know that you found what the cache creator is sending you to. You then email the cache creator. Your verification for a traditional cache is finding the container and signing the logbook. Virtual cache http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp are covered on the requirements page.

Someone just recently emailed me about one of my virtual caches and was WAY off. I could tell he had not been there and he did not get credit for the cache. He never wrote back.

This is not a discussion regarding locationless caches, and what you describe is against the http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp anyway.

You take my comment to literal.

I also am the "originator" of a virtual cache.

I found the "object" (of my virtual)to be unique, it seem to fit the definition of something of interest to many but maybe not all. It did not seem responsible to place a micro or traditional cache container on the site because it would violate the intent of the physical location that was created by "someone else". And yes I was asked why not put a micro or traditional cache on this unique site. I didn't place a "physical" cache because I deemed it inappropriate. After all I thought this was about a hunt, and "validation" of a find. If there is no object of the hunt, be it virtual, micro, traditional, we do not have a sport or hobby....

Sorry to step on your toes mentioning a "locationless cache". Didn't know the words "locationless cache" was your hot button. Will refrain mentioning "locationless cache" in any forum you consider inappropriate for the phrase "locationless cache". I guess I will have to search for the understanding of what a "locationless cache" in a forum designated for "locationless cache's".

Dale

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

I'm Diagonally Parked, In A Parallel Universe.

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

1.2k · March 1, 2003

It would seem to me that since maryu has placed micros before it is obvious the knowledge and experience is there to know whether a micro would work in the particular location. It would seem, from what I've read so far on this subject, that first we get rid of locationless, and then virtuals. I'm sorry if that offends some, but it seems that is the tact that is being taken by those that think these two types somehow detract from the "true" geocache, the traditional.

I've watched this debate for some time now and then I look at the HUGE database of traditinal caches and I have to wonder why some people feel so threatened by other types than their favorite? On the justification that "Some park managers might make us have only virtuals in their facilities" I have to say, those that place traditional caches in bad locations, without permission, are causing much more damage to our standing with park managers that the fact that virtuals exist. If we continue to be so arrogant and insensitive to the rules and regulations governing the various parks and other locations we will DRIVE them to the virtuals, or to a complete ban on our sport, which would be worse.

I have no problem with admins trying to make sure we follow the rules, God bless em'. But, I do not think their personal preference should come into it. If a virtual is submitted that is within the rules as they stand, it should be approved. If a traditional cache is submitted that is within the rules, it should be approved. If we find the rules should be changed, then change the rules, it's as simple as that. Arbitrarily applying the rules will cause individuals to go find other things to do, and that WILL hurt our sport.

Just my very humble two cents worth. "Flame On".

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

2.7k · March 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

It would be nice if you could be original and creative and make a new cache, though, rather than having to copy part of something that someone else has already used. Once again, you have to work a little more at it.

I have done my share of being creative and original and have worked at planting Caches. Take a look at the following Caches and see what

their difficulty (D) and Terrain (T) ratings are:

1. Lions Ridge D4-T4 Traditional Cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=7944

which is linked to the following Caches.

a. Homestead Meadows North D2-T4 Virtual Cache

http:/www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=25788

b. Geoteering D3-T4 Event Cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=20843

c. Geo-Touring Rocky Mountain High D1-T4 Unknown Cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=26966

2. Grey Diamond Ghost Trail D5-T4 Multi Cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=10494

which is linked to the following Caches.

a. UTM - Up The Mountain D2-T3.5 Virtual Cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=13812

b.Gliddens Wares - D2-T4.5 Traditonal Cache

This Cache is under development will involve a 4 mile hike 1 way with an elevation gain of 2,690 ft.

3. Puma' Red Ribbon Overlook D3.5-T3.5 Multi Cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=43977

which is linked to the following Caches:

a. The Original Cache D1-T1 Virtual Cache (this cache predates Ulmers can of beans)

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=43459

b. Lest We Forget D3-T2 Virtual Cache.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=43976

4. #25 D4 - T3 Multi Cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=42606

which is linked to three Caches:

So couldMtn-Manplease tell me what I'm missing when it comes to Cache Creativity.

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

1.4k · March 1, 2003

Tahosa, you've got some very cool caches there!

And it appears by the log entries that everyone has nothing but great things to say about them -- even the virtuals

March 1, 2003

I am having the same problem with a cache i tried to place today in Philadelphia. Here is what I wrote to the admin:

How do I go about elaborating on it further? Should I go to the proposed cache page and edit it? Like I said in the last e-mail the proposed cache is a sculpture of a large frog made in 1941. It is located in Rittenhouse Square one of the four original squares created by William Penn. It was named after David Rittenhouse who was a famous astronomer/scientist at the University of Pennsylvania in the late 18th century. He was also an inventor of considerable worth. As such at least within Philadelphia the square is among the most notable places in the city so I figured this would be a great place for a virtual cache. As the square is constantly teeming with people I do not feel it is suitable for even a micro cache. Philadelphia has long prided itself and has been noted for its outdoor artwork and the frog one of the more memorable is just one of many sculptures in the square. If you feel this is not a suitable virtual cache site can you please explain why, so I know for furture reference and give examples of good virtual caches.

I am just trying to make sense of this all and the kicker is the admin is from Georgia and I am in PA so I don't expect him to be up on all that is notale in Philly, but at least to understand what locals think.

"Democracy is the belief that 20,000 lemmings can't all be wrong."

March 1, 2003

This is (not was, but is) your cache submission:

quote:
Located in Center City Philly this hopper is just waiting to meet you.

Once you are there you will know what it is. Once you find it just sit and relax and watch the people, dogs, birds etc...while sipping on a coffee or cool drink in the summer. Enjoy the area!

In the archive log I referenced the cache guidelines and further indicated that some means of cache find verification is needed. You've done an admirable job of describing your cache to all who might want to hunt it to the point that a GPS probably isn't needed. However you have still failed to add some means of cache find verification.

As I indicated on another thread I'd prefer to keep such communications between the cache submitter and the cache approver, but if you insist on posting it here so be it.

Cheers,

erik - geocaching.com admin

7.2k · March 1, 2003

Boy, you know, I took a step back on Thursday and went out and found some caches. I sure had a great day. Give it a try, cachers, you will feel a lot better.

Tahosa, I'm sorry you're so worked up. Those are nice caches and next time I'm in Colorado I will have to plan time to find some of your caches. They look like great hikes. Estes is a cool place. Since you seem to do such a great job, then you should have no problem in the future putting together multi-caches using virtual locations to lead cachers to traditional caches. I would guess that you should never have to worry about posting a virtual cache, and maybe others can get some ideas from your caches.

My sentence was not an absolute since I did not say "You are required to", but I should have phrased it as "It would be nice if cachers could be original and creative and make a new cache, though, rather than having to copy part of something that someone else has already used. Once again, you have to work a little more at it." That way you might not have thought it was directed at you personally. It was not.

Dale, I was just trying to keep this topic on topic. As you know from reading these forums locationless caches are a hot button for everyone. To many topics leave the original train of thought as soon as locationless anything is mentioned. I was just attempting to keep this on topic. Thanks Breaktrack for doing the same. From your post it seemed to be a hot button for you.

March 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by wicacher:
This site is supposed to be a database of geocaches, not a database of _Interesting places_, _Interesting monuments/sculptures_, _Interesting historical markers_ etc.

If its an interesting place you want to lead someone, post it over on http://www.waypoint.org which __IS__ a database of _Interesting_ things.

As virtual caches by definition don't actually have a cache, which is what this activity was created to hunt, there needs to be compelling reasons to qualify as more than just a point-of-interest (POI). If there is a great hunt or hike involved, well then perhaps a virtual might qualify. But a drive-by location, or as this cache owner states _...just steps from a couple of very popular (to the locals anyway) coffee bars and a community centre and on the bike path around the Creek..._, just doesn't meet the requirements of a VC to me.

As the guidelines state, _a view is a view, a park is a park_, and to paraphrase, a sculpture is a sculpture, not a cache.

__________________

-Alan

Very Very good points!

Salvelinus

"The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Life is a whole and good and evil must be accepted together"

Ralph Abele

March 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by wicacher:
This site is supposed to be a database of geocaches, not a database of _Interesting places_, _Interesting monuments/sculptures_, _Interesting historical markers_ etc.

If its an interesting place you want to lead someone, post it over on http://www.waypoint.org which __IS__ a database of _Interesting_ things.

As virtual caches by definition don't actually have a cache, which is what this activity was created to hunt, there needs to be compelling reasons to qualify as more than just a point-of-interest (POI). If there is a great hunt or hike involved, well then perhaps a virtual might qualify. But a drive-by location, or as this cache owner states _...just steps from a couple of very popular (to the locals anyway) coffee bars and a community centre and on the bike path around the Creek..._, just doesn't meet the requirements of a VC to me.

As the guidelines state, _a view is a view, a park is a park_, and to paraphrase, a sculpture is a sculpture, not a cache.

__________________

-Alan

Yeah - what he said!

This was the clearest, most concise, most on-target writeup I've come across. Besides, the local museum has several neat sculptures in it - I'm not posting them as virtual caches (hmmmmm, maybe I should - just after I finish up my "count the bricks on the building" virtual cache).

Approvers - please keep some standards in place so the game remains interesting! IMHO

2.7k · March 2, 2003

Wicacher with only 1 find since August are you speaking from experience or the dark and moldy inner depths of a empty Cache Container.

Read these and go out and get some experience:

http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp

"We're working on new ways to open up the site for all sorts of waypoints, so who knows what the future may hold"?

"The overall intent for virtual and reverse virtual caches is to focus on the unique"

"A virtual cache is a cache that exists in a form of an object at a location which was already there".

"The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit".

"Virtual Cache posting Guidelines:

1. A virtual cache must be of a physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. . .

2. A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects.

3. A flagpole at a memorial or a particularly novel flagpole would be ok, or an especially unique tree would count. And here is the location of a unique tree. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=11088

4. Virtual caches should be geographically dispersed. New postings which are within 0.1 mile of an existing cache will generally not be approved . . .

5. There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer.

6. An original photo can be an acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with valid answers for the question or questions.

7. Understand that although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries.

If they are not considered as a Cache by some then why does Geocaching.Com have guidelines for them. Was it an oversight on their part?

If you don't like them then just don't do them,

its that simple. Nobody is twisting your arm to go chase these Virtual Caches!

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

7.2k · March 2, 2003

Tahosa, man, you really need to chill a bit. This will be a little lesson in asking before accusing.

The wicacher account is a shared account for a couple of cachers in Wisconsin. They are the regional approvers for that area. One part of the group has almost four times the number of finds as you do (230) and they are a long-time well respected Geocacher. It is up to them to say who they really are, but I think that serves no purpose anyway.

They have one find because they unarchived a cache and did not delete the log.

Remember that when you point a finger there are three more pointing back at you (and a thumb).

2.7k · March 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
Tahosa, man, you really need to chill a bit. This will be a little lesson in asking before accusing.

The wicacher account is a shared account for a couple of cachers in Wisconsin. They are the regional approvers for that area. One part of the group has almost four times the number of finds as you do (230) and they are a long-time well respected Geocacher. It is up to them to say who they really are, but I think that serves no purpose anyway.

They have one find because they unarchived a cache and did not delete the log.

Remember that when you point a finger there are three more pointing back at you (and a thumb).

Answer me just One question, if they are regional approvers then why do they tell us to go to another website.

According to the Wisdom of Wicacher -->>

"This site is supposed to be a database of geocaches, not a database of Interesting places, Interesting monuments/sculptures, Interesting historical markers etc.

If its an interesting place you want to lead someone, post it over on www.waypoint.org which IS a database of Interesting things".

Maybe they should read the guidelines!!!

I will take a chill pill, when all Caches are treated equally and fairly and regional approvers don't tell us to go to another website just because we like virtuals!!

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

7.2k · March 2, 2003

Your right. You win. Stay mad.

March 5, 2003

Glad to see this topic died.

We are going Geocaching!

"Edison Medicine": Anything that brightens your day is a good thing!

4.7k · March 5, 2003

this topic ain't dead.

and hey, somebody put a virt almost on top of the location where i'm preparing to put a leg of an involved multi. it don't bother me none. you can just log the virt along with your visit to the leg. and besides, it's a cool virt.

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

The virtues of a virtual cache

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

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