Two virtual caches about 20' apart - useful or annoying?

[tgspidell]

I posted a virtual cache in Rocky Mountain National Park -

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=31099

 

About eight days later, another geocacher posted a cache at virtually the same location -

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=32628

 

I've emailed antennaDC (the other geocacher) to see if we're referring to the exact same sign in our caches. We're not - the two signs are about 20' from each other. He's offered to either link to my cache or delete his cache.

 

The question - is having two virtual caches so close to each other useful, or annoying?

 

Thanks for any opinions,

 

Tom Spidell

[jnc1991]

Whether it is useful or annoying or not I dont see why it is a problem...doesn't seem worth addressing to me. I hope that does not sound to sarcastic, I dont mean it that way!

 

JNC

[+Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jnc1991:

Whether it is useful or annoying or not I dont see why it is a problem...doesn't seem worth addressing to me. I hope that does not sound to sarcastic, I dont mean it that way!

 

JNC

---

20 feet apart is way too close. Given the error inherent in the GPS system, its very likely you could find cache #1 at the exact co-ordinates given for cache #2. Also, it would seem that the actual virtual cache is the same, they just have 2 slightly different ways of verifying it.

Since the database is already calculating the distance to the other nearest caches, I would think something that close to an existing cache should throw up some sort of red flag. I'm not saying to automatically reject caches closer then x number of feet, but at least tag it for extra attention by the approvers

 

Illegitimus non carborundum!

[+briansnat]

If each virtual is unique and its unlikely that they'll be confused, I guess it's OK. In fact a lot of geocacher will like the idea of being able to bag 2 caches at the same time.

 

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

[+briansnat]

It looks like both virtuals are for the exact same thing. They just use different signs as verification. In this specific case, I think one of you should archive your cache.

 

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

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I wouldn't worry about it. It's obvious the other cacher is a good guy for offering to archive his. I'd leave them both up. It's sort of a non issue in my eyes.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[+sbell111]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

I wouldn't worry about it. It's obvious the other cacher is a good guy for offering to archive his. I'd leave them both up. It's sort of a non issue in my eyes.

---

 

I would tend to agree.

 

A similar situation recently happened to me. Another cacher placed a micro about twenty feet from one I placed a few days earlier. There was certainly no malice intended. We shared a chuckle and decided to give finders a bonus and leave them both.

[Dru Morgan]

what about the two at Bellagio? Lake Vegas and Sprinklers? Two identical virts.

 

Mark 1:17 "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you cachers of men." -Dru Morgan www.theheavenlyhost.com/dru

[+Harrald]

It's the same cache. The only difference is the way you verify it.

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

[Tahosa and Sons]

If they are differant it won't hurt. I use one virtual, as a guide to the real cache. And this weekend we are having two separate events in the same place at the same time, and a movable cache is being brought to the site.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=31518

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=33363

 

The "Bushwhacker"

Exitus acta probat

>>--->

[+sbukosky]

I don't see a big problem. Places are getting saturated and without some doubling up, many cachers will run out of things to find.

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

[+sbukosky]

I don't see a big problem. Places are getting saturated and without some doubling up, many cachers will run out of things to find.

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

[Steak N Eggs]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

I wouldn't worry about it. It's obvious the other cacher is a good guy for offering to archive his. I'd leave them both up. It's sort of a non issue in my eyes.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

---

 

 

Look at it as if it was two physcle caches, would they be too close? My vote would be yes. You can do what others have said (let them be) or let the second cache placer back out like he offerd (very respectable person). I am not a virt/locationless person myself but have hunted them before. We have a couple less then a couple of hundred yards

apart in my area and I thought THAT was too close. I like a little hunt to find my caches but thats just me and my opinion........

 

No harm intended Lazyboy. We all have things that "we like"....

 

"My gps say's it RIGHT HERE".

http://www.geogadgets.com

[Steak N Eggs]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

I wouldn't worry about it. It's obvious the other cacher is a good guy for offering to archive his. I'd leave them both up. It's sort of a non issue in my eyes.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

---

 

 

Look at it as if it was two physcle caches, would they be too close? My vote would be yes. You can do what others have said (let them be) or let the second cache placer back out like he offerd (very respectable person). I am not a virt/locationless person myself but have hunted them before. We have a couple less then a couple of hundred yards

apart in my area and I thought THAT was too close. I like a little hunt to find my caches but thats just me and my opinion........

 

No harm intended Lazyboy. We all have things that "we like"....

 

"My gps say's it RIGHT HERE".

http://www.geogadgets.com

[+Renegade Knight]

Everyone thinks the NEW cacher should bow out. What about the OLD cacher? I've got a lock on my Town for every good spot. Eventually I will let them all go so other cachers can do their own thing and have some fun hiding caches. If I don't odds are that they will do it anyway. As for being too close, for me that's a non issue. It's also a bonus.

[+briansnat]

I think what some are missing here is that the virtuals are the same thing and there are just different methods of verifying the find. Its as if two people placed a virtual for the Empire State Building, but one person asked for the street number as verification and the other asked for the number of paving stones in front.

 

If the virtuals were two unique items a few feet apart, that's one thing, but two virtuals for the same thing is a bit much.

 

I have no problem with caches close to each other. In fact it's nice to be able to bag 2 caches in one trip. If someone else put a PHYSICAL cache 50 feet from one of my physical caches, it wouldn't bother me a bit. But if someone hid their cache in the same hollow stump as mine, I'd have something to say. I think we have a similar situation here.

 

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

[+Web-ling]

There are three virtuals within about 100 yards of each other near me. The one I placed was there first. The second one placed is the last leg of a multi-virtual.

 

At least in this instance, I have no problem with them. They are in a downtown area of a large city, and all point to different aspects of the history of the area. At first, I was kinda irked that someone had placed them so close to mine, but when I actually hunted them myself, I changed my thinking more to, "I wish I'd noticed that first and made that into a cache myself!"

 

Now, if the actual cache is the same thing, just with different ways of verifying it, the person who placed it second should archive. I mean, if one says, "What's the sculptor's name?" and the other one says, "What year was the sculpture dedicated?" and it's the same sculpture, what's the point?

 

[CaveDiver]

But then, I think virtual caches are nonsense so don't ask me!

[tgspidell]

After reviewing all of the comments, we've decided to leave both caches up, and cross reference them.

 

Thanks for all of the opinions.

 

tgspidell

[+Seay me]

I don't mind the virutals. My wife and I have recently visited Texas from Iowa while seeing Family. On our way back to Iowa on interstate 35 we visited the "And Jesus Wept" cache in Oklahoma city (GC7051). The cache is a virtual at the memorial of the federal building that was blown up. We wouldn't have visited there otherwise. On the same block there is another virtual cache "American Eagle" (GC4772). Anyway, the caches are visible from each other. Both were interesting in their own respects......I don't see a problem.

 

Chip