Attention Jeremy and Geocaching.com

2.3k · August 13, 2003

I have done many virtuals and while I did not like all of them, I did find something interesting or learned something from them...

Beats the hell out of reading about it in a book.

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

5.3k · August 13, 2003

There needs to be some consistency to the criteria by which the "approvers" approve caches.

In the N. Cal. Bay area you cannot get a virtual approved anymore, I as well as other cachers have run into a ploicy of no viruals being allowed, it seems what was once a guidline is now a hard and fast rule for cachers in this area.

4.8k · August 13, 2003

Is there really all that much inconsistency? I have seen numerous people complain that their virtual was not approved and then state that they were not treated consistently. Yet many appeared to be denied because a regular cache could be put there. Others fell into that "subjective" range of whether it was interesting/unique enough, but I think the approvers are perhaps pretty consistent there too. At least I tend to see similar responses from them when they explain why they did not approve a virtual.

On the other hand, Johnnyvegas just posted that there seems to be a rule against virtuals in his area altogether. If true, then yes there is inconsistency if virtuals can get approved in some areas and not at all in others. If workable, perhaps virtuals should always be handled by the same few approvers, or appoint an approver only for virtuals. That would lessen any problems of inconsistency.

1.6k · August 13, 2003

Be glad that this website has chosen to focus on it's core strengths, rather than allow itself to become spread out thinly amongst every whim and fancy.

And this choice surely leaves an opportunity to someone else to come up with a site dedicated to a different set of core strengths...

1.4k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Moosiegirl wrote:
then just SAY SO...

That is one very well stated post.

I have just refused a virtual where there was ABSOLUTELY no place to put a physical cache at the location or anywhere nearby. It also could not be integrated into a multicache. That the area is very unique didn't matter. I've been told to contact the nearest cache owners to ask them to put the coords on their cache pages as a 'point of interest'.

It took several e-mails back and forth with an approver (who incidentally, has been very helpful) before being denied. The approver consulted with other approvers and I was informed that some approvers thought the virtual was OK and others thought that it was not. Seems that if I had initially contacted an approver that liked my idea that it probably would have been OK'd. Where's the consistency there?

It's such a big fat waste of time for cache placers and approvers alike to have to go through this charade just to have a virtual denied.

If there are rules, then the rules should be stated clearly. If there are no virtuals allowed, then just say so. But to be wishy-washy about this just causes confusion for everyone.

*****

2.1k · August 13, 2003

When you get several different people doing something, you are going to get several different ways of doing it. Especially when the guidelines are just that, guidelines. Everyone is going to interpret differently as well as the approvers. Just as one person thinks something is unique/inriguing/different, the next person will not.

As someone else stated, benchmarking is successful on here the way it is set up. Perhaps virtuals can be set up similarly. Obviously there are those who enjoy doing virtuals, keep them seperately from the traditionals. Benchmarks are not caches either, and the system works for them.

Or just do away with all of them, granfathered or not.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

August 13, 2003

Boy, did I open a can of worms. I am happy that the thread has continued in a "mostly" tactful tone. I feel it is good for those who disagree with the appearant policy of "virtual caches" being frowned upon to voice your opinion. Several of you, who have e-mailed me, have stated that you stray away from posting because of a "backlash" from other geocachers. However, voices must be heard. This post was concerning the CONSISTENCY of the approval process, virtuals or traditional. My BIGGEST argument is, and I AM NOT ALONE ON THIS, is the following:

Re-write the guidelines to fit your policy. In no place does it say "ask before you place a virtual cache". In no place does it state that virtual caches aren't as good as a "McToy filled tubberware box". If you wish to focus on traditional caches only, then let the guidelines reflect that. There are guidelines for placing a "virtual cache" on your site yet I have now learned that in some cases the "approvers" will not allow one. Then why have these guidelines. Either allow them fully or don't allow them at ALL. Don't ride the fence with these issues. All I am asking is be consistent ACROSS THE BOARD. Not left up to each approver. This would even take some pressure off of them.

Please also remember, we are all different, we like different things in life, and different stuff makes us happy. Some of us do like virtual caches. I teach history and so I really like finding a cool historical spot. It is NOT fair that someone who has been caching longer than I, who doesn't care for the historic marker, take it away from me and others who share my opinion.

There is an obvious rift on this issue. I stand as the first one to post here, but NOT the lone voice saying, "We want consistancy!" There have even been suggestions as to how to fix the problem. 1. Make virtuals like benchmarks.

2. Do away with virtuals all together.

3. Make the guidelines for virtuals state the real policy.

4. Fix the guidelines to allow virtuals, but make the form more detailed for the

approver's benefit.

Let's all be thankful that this site allows different opinions, even bad ones (Unlike the Magellan site from what I have heard). Be grateful to Jeremy and others who keep Geocaching.com up and running, and improving it from time to time. Where else would we go.

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

August 13, 2003

Granted we're new to the sport. That may completely negate this posting in some people's eyes, but who cares? We certainly don't!

Our opinion? If we want to go see art, or a nice view of the city, or the World's Biggest Free-Standing Mud Dwelling, we'll just go see it. We don't need geocaching.com to lead us there. We're glad that cache types are listed since we avoid the virtuals as if they were the Plague.

The sport/hobby/whatever is in searching for the spot the coordinates indicate, then finding the cache and taking/leaving something interesting/amusing/whatever. If you can see it from 200 feet away, why not just post directions, since the coordinates are largely irrelevant? If we want to go the the Abbey at Mt. Angel to see the world's biggest hairball (I'm not kidding, it exists there), I'll save my batteries and drive down there without the GPS.

There's another term for "virtual cache," and that is "sightseeing." Slapping coordinates on a nice view doesn't really make it any more exciting or interesting.

2.3k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Be glad that this website has chosen to focus on it's core strengths, rather than allow itself to become spread out thinly amongst every whim and fancy.

And this choice surely leaves an opportunity to someone else to come up with a site dedicated to a different set of core strengths...

Why bother having Benchmarking at all then?? It is nothing more than a Virtual cache.

Why not just make virtuals a whole separate section as was done with Benchmarking??

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

1.6k · August 13, 2003

With subsections for 'coordinates of stolen vehicles burned in the back country'...

In all seriousness, I guess the difference is that virtuals require admin time to approve, and that the site has an obligation to protect the users from dubious guises. If virtuals were *like* benchmarks, they could easily become even far more numerous...

I know this statement likely to be called a slippery slope fallacy, but I ask:

'where would it end?'

1.6k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mckee:
There's another term for "virtual cache," and that is "sightseeing." Slapping coordinates on a nice view doesn't really make it any more exciting or interesting.

One of the more sensible and well reasoned comments to grace these pages today...

1.6k · August 13, 2003

And I quote:

The overall intent for virtual and reverse virtual caches is to focus on the unique as opposed to the commonplace or mundane.

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail/beach/view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are.

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.

I guess some folks just want further clarification...

August 13, 2003

AGAIN, the point of this thread is not to hear how everyone hates virtuals or loves them. It was to address inconsistencies in approvers when it came to caches LIKE virtuals. Some allow, some don't. Even tho both follow the same guidelines.

quote: "We're glad that cache types are listed since we avoid the virtuals as if they were the Plague." from mckee.

That is why they are listed like that. You choose not to find them, I do sometimes. Is it fair that your opinion and others means I get no choic ein the matter?

mckee, you opinion is very important. Even tho we seem to be on different sides of the fence, we can agree to disagree,. (Boy, does the world need to learn that lesson) I have never been to a virtual that I can get the answer to prove the find from 200 feet away. I have NEVER seen a virtual on this site that was "a view".

canadazuuk, I am sure that if the approver's got overloaded, then Jeremy could ask others to act as such. I also don't see a problem with "virtuals" or any type cache become "more numerous", as you put it. Isn't that the nature of this sport, TO GROW? And as long as it doesn't cause you harm (you don't look for virtuals) why is it a big deal for virtuals to be allowed for others. Are those who hate virtuals saying that their opinion is the right one and should become the standard? I appreciate you clarifying what the rules say. But again, that is a mundane point considering that is NOT the focus of this thread. I have never found, nor do I hope to find a virtual that is a "view" or just a "trail". The last point you quoted is the sticking point: 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. Some, including myself, feel there is inconsistecy in this department. Thats all. Depending on what approver you get, will determine if your virtual gets placed or not.

BOTTOM LINE: we could go on and on in the debate over virtuals and their validity to geocaching. Even if virtuals were abolished, I would keep on caching and chatting with you guys. Would I be upset, a little because a compromise was not achieved. But either they are allowed and the rules used by ALL approvers consistently, do away with them, or make them seperate.

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bubba Cache:
It is NOT fair that someone who has been caching longer than I, who doesn't care for the historic marker, take it away from me and others who share my opinion.

Last winter I became involved in a discussion here about GC.com's policies. I purported that GC.com would work best if it concentrated on what it does best (listing coordinates) and refrained from governing the game (fwiw, I still feel this way).

Lots of people weighed in. There are some people who are tactless when arguing, but in the end, Groundspeak gets to determine what happens here. It may not be fair. I suggest that it isn't even in the long-term best interest of the game, but it is the way it is.

I support Groundspeak's right to determine what flies on this site and what does not. Whether it is consistent, whether it is updated on the guidelines page, whether it should be of more import than goofy cartoon designs makes little difference. Jeremy has made it clear that virtual caches are to be the rare exception.

Reading these fora is becoming increasingly more frustrating as virtually each thread is a re-hash of the same discussions. It boils over when some folks state that they are re-hashing because they want their name attached to the thread.

Fro.

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:
Re: Virtual Caches

If you really want to enter the murky realm of virtual caches, ask first and post second. Consider that your virtual cache will most likely not get listed. That way you are prepared for disappointment.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

If only there was a way to let all GeoCachers know how GC.com felt about Virtuals. Some type of medium that would reach all GeoCachers and convey that virtuals would most likely be dis-approved. Any help on this? I am drawing a blank. Oh well maybe it can't be done. Guess people will have to continue to read the fictious guidelines and waste thier time. Find out the hard way. That is probably better. Silly me, what was I thinking.

2.1k · August 13, 2003

Firstly they could have seperate approvers for virtuals as to not take away time for the approvers of current traditionals.

As far as clarification of what you post canadazuuk, it does state that it has to "be of interest to other players". That's a wide statement. It doesn't say of interest to the approver themself. I think that the point is that there is some inconsistency throughout. Just as the virtuals are frowned upon and some places don't get any approved, while others do, either approve them or don't. And then if they say no more virtuals, then there will be a lot of puzzle caches and mystery caches that need to go as well. There are some marked as mystery caches, but they end up being virtuals. You just have to do a little research first to find the answer.

If virtuals did become like benchmarks, then yes they may become far more numerous. But if they are seperate from the traditionals, then who cares? The way the profiles are set up, it keeps everything seperate anyway. Not like the total finds of before.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.6k · August 13, 2003

The core strength of geocaching.com appears to be listing physical caches. The site appears to desire to focus on that.

Surely there is someone willing to step up to the plate for virtuals, and make that their core strength.

The call for making the virtual guidelines CONSISTENT, is pushing them towards being disallowed altogether (IMO), simply because those in favour of virtuals will not be happy with anything less than having few restrictions.

August 13, 2003

I think the points have been made and both sides have expressed their views. Cool thing is we can!!! Ain't America great. I want to put this to bed. "Frolickin said it best: it has been hashed out already. Point went in a few directions so lets let this go to bed and leave it to geocaching.com to figure out or leave. Hey think about this: FALL is coming, NO TICKS, cooler temps!!!!! Thansk to all of those who used tact in your views and debated like adults. Some of you, please read your responses before you post them, you kinda sound like a jerk. Thanks again and happy hunting. I am outta this one.

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

9.4k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
Bottom line this site likes traditionals

Well, duh! Do you know the definition of CACHE?

From dictionary.com: A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.

Nowhere does it mention a scenic or historical point of interest.

quote:
but there are times and places that a virtual is more appropriate.

Only if there is a good reason why a traditional cache cannot be placed there. There are some pretty small micro-containers available that can hold a logsheet. The only exceptions should be National Parks and other places where containers are banned.

quote:
If that case can be made (and we know it's not an easy case to make) then the virtual can and should stand on it's own merit. Not as part of a lame multi cache with a suprise twist ending.

Most multis I've seen that use virtuals to get to require you to actually read the marker (and maybe learn something) to get the clue. Most virtuals say find the marker and take a picture, but you don't have to actually read it.

Looks like virtuals are worse, the multis actually require you to visit the site for the information.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

1.6k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Grajek:

Silly me, what was I thinking.

Exactly...

There is a big hole in one of your socks.

=======

It seems reasonable that the official virtual cache guidelines be updated (again), as this would lessen the confusion.

2.1k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
The core strength of geocaching.com appears to be listing physical caches. The site appears to desire to focus on that.

That is great and they need to follow that. I don't think that the argument is that virtuals should be allowed. I think it's more of either either they are or they aren't. If the site wants to focus strictly on physical caches (a container with a minimum of a log book) then they should. Do away with the virtuals. Even the grandfathered ones. Will make things much simpler.

quote:
Surely there is someone willing to step up to the plate for virtuals, and make that their core strength.

Hopefully there is as there are people that do like virtuals. Do I like them? I've done 1, well actually 2 but one was listed as a Mystery Cache. You ended up having to drive to a location in the end and telling the cache owner 2 things that you saw there. (name and number). Would I do others? Probably. But there are not a whole lot in the immediate area.

quote:
The call for making the virtual guidelines CONSISTENT, is pushing them towards being disallowed altogether (IMO), simply because those in favour of virtuals will not be happy with anything less than having few restrictions.

That is fine. I think that all is asked is a little fairness across the board. If it means doing away with them, then I'm fine with that. I think it would be an added benefit for the site myself. Make it available only to paying members as well as benchmarking or some of the other things. They already have member only caches. Make virtuals members only.

Keep the site as simple and straightforward as possible. Granted, most people do not like rules and/or restrisctions. But sometimes they are necessary.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

August 13, 2003

Maybe this horse has been beat to death but I’m going to chime in with one last comment.

At first I disagreed with GC’s position on this issue but since I have been out more lately I am beginning to agree more and more with Jeremy’s position on this.

First off let me say that I have no problems with the concept of a virtual and have logged quite a few my self and couple of them have given me some very interesting information that I would not have known had I not visited the virtual. (Both were tombstones with VERY interesting historical facts and I believe both would qualify as WOW factors.)

HOWEVER that being said, most virtuals are not worth the effort to find them. In and around middle TN there are tons of virtuals that with a little thought and effort could have been nice micros or even full sized caches. Instead we have FAR too many virtuals that block placement of good caches nearby. One in particular (I won’t name it) is in an area that has acres of public area suitable for hiding a full sized cache with easy accessibility and moderate traffic flow. But there is a micro on one side and a virtual on the other so this whole area is now completely blocked as a location of a full sized cache. I think if virtuals are going to continue to be maintained on this website they should have their own section like benchmarks and should not block the placement of a regular cache.

As far as the site rules being spelled out clearly, I think in general they are.

If you have any doubt when placing any non standard cache just ask your local approver and he will let you know beforehand. I asked mine about one I am planning that I knew would sound “Strange” and got a quick and polite answer.

This is their site, work with them and they will work with you.

Just my $.02 worth.

1.6k · August 13, 2003

I believe Seneca wrote one of the better responses to the thematic problems this ever expanding interest creates:

I don’t think the ban on moving caches has anything to do with any “problem”, nor does it have to. I think it has more to do with TPTB wanting to have a tighter, more predictable (and controllable) conceptual framework (boundary) for the game of Geocaching. When I first started Geocaching, almost anything went - including any type of locationless and virtual caches. People (as creative people naturally do) were coming up with really novel ideas getting further and further away from the original concept of Geocaching. Some of these ideas were great (and some not so great). Moving caches were among one of the more creative ideas (and I like them). I also really liked, Markwell’s “Photographer’s” caches. However, at that time, I also got the sense that the game had no boundaries, and that the well designed (and flexible) Geocaching.com site, would sooner or later resemble something totally unlike the original concept of Geocaching, particularly in view of the rapid growth it was experiencing. I believe (and I may be wrong) that the elimination of some of the novel cache concepts, including “moving caches” was by design, with the intention of keeping the game within boundaries developed by Jeremy and his crew (and there’s nothing wrong with that - its his site - and overall, I really like the way he has controlled its development - if I didn’t I would go elsewhere).

August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bubba Cache:
I want to put this to bed.

Good luck. Inconsistency in cache guidelines and approvals, poor communications from TPTB, and the tedious digressions about what a real cache is have been a part of geocaching for the 2 years I've been doing it. I'll make a wild prediction that the subjects will come up again.

1.4k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by hmarq:
cansister, but perhaps that should be a different activity ... call it 'landmarking' or 'fun, silly, tourist trap location marking' ... whatever, but geocaching should be about placing and finding something, a film canister, an ammo can, a tupperware ... whatever, but it shouldn't be visit this spot and email me.

I completely agree with this. I'd love to see Virtuals and locationless lumped together and moved off to its own little subspace like benchmarking. Places are interesting, sure... but I see interesting places every day.

Not saying there's no value in virtuals, but I'd love to see them just have a moritorium. They're such a hassle and bone of contention and really - we can live without them. Just zap them! Then all these complaint threads about the approval process can go away and we can go back to the black and white of the traditionals.

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

August 13, 2003

First, allow me to quote the great social commentarian of our time, Rodney King, when he said "Can't we all just get along?". No really, despite the wide ranging feelings on the subjects at hand, people have been pretty civil and that is great!

Second, to the original point of the thread, consistency is good and should be the ultimate goal. At the same time, we need to recognize that it is also unattainable when you are talking about subjective ideas and parameters. The only way to be completely consistent is to have iron-clad rules (not guidelines) to address every situation possible. This, by its own nature, is not feasible. First, one cannot foresee every possible situation. Second, even strict rules are subject to some interpretation and ambivalence. I don't think anyone wants to live in a world that stifles creativity and flexibility and everyone and everything are the same (see downfall of the Soviet Union circa 1989).

Now regarding virtuals, reverse, moving, benchmarks, etc....In my opinion, all should be allowed. Geocaching cannot be all things for all people but there is no reason that it cannot be most things for most people. One of the many things that attracted me to the sport/hobby/game whatever you want to call it of geocaching was that despite its relative infancy, the game seemed to be pretty well developed and thought out. Even more impressive, it seemed that the Creators recognized that they were only scratching the surface of the potential ideas and in fact incouraged people to come up with alternatives and variations. Hence, the Geocaching.com board that is a forum for pitching new concepts for how to improve, expand and adjust the game. If these different ideas can be seperated out like the benchmarking, then they are available to all who want them, and those who don't, can easily ignore them. The purists can focus on traditional caches, those in urban areas or adverse to crawling through brush and fighting bugs, and the great outdoors can frequent virtuals, etc...

I am simply of the opinion that the more people that get involved in geocaching the better for everyone. Sure, oversaturation will be a problem and there will likely be more poor quality caches, but I think there will also be an increase in good quality caches as well. I just don't think that the geocaching.community should be an elitest, secret society. That too is a matter of opinion.

Stifling the evolution of the game will probably ultimately lead to its demise. Allowing the game to evolve, develop and expand fosters more interest and a better final product that more and more people can participate in. At the same time, I respect the right of Jeremy, et al to make the rules and shape the game as they see fit. I believe in loyalty but that only goes so far. As if real life, if someone offers a superior product for a better price, loyalty generally goes by the wayside. The same holds true in geo-life.

And that is the story as told from the eyes of Lothar!

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

I am Lothar, King of the Hill people. I have many tales to tell....

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

2.3k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
{snip} .... I also got the sense that the game had no boundaries, and that the well designed (and flexible) Geocaching.com site, would sooner or later resemble something totally unlike the original concept of Geocaching, particularly in view of the rapid growth it was experiencing.

I understand your point of view. It does appear to be the classic battle we see in many facets of life...

Remaining static and unchanging (the purist view) or

Embracing evolution and change (which can be for better or for worse)

Its interesting to step back from the debate and view the posted messages in relationship to these 2 ideological concepts.

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

2.3k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
Bottom line this site likes traditionals

Well, duh! Do you know the definition of CACHE?

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cache: A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.

Nowhere does it mention a scenic or historical point of interest.

If you want to look at it literally, which you are doing by pulling out the definition, then Geocaching is not an accurate term for the sport. You said yourself that a cache is for storing 'provisions'; the trinkets and baubles found in a cache could harldy be considered this, nor could a log book be considered a provision. I think it would have been too juvenile (sp) to call it Geo-treasure hunting.

I do not know the origin of using the word "Cache" to describe Geocaching. I certainly would like to know if someone out there does know the answer.

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

9.4k · August 13, 2003

From the FAQ:

quote:
The GPS Stash Hunt, Global Positioning Stash hunt is interchangable. Geocaching has become the standard for the game, however.

The word Geocaching broken out is GEO for geography, and CACHING for the process of hiding a cache. A cache in computer terms is information usually stored in memory to make it faster to retrieve, but the term is also used in hiking/camping as a hiding place for concealing and preserving provisions.

While you may not view McToys as provisions(A stock of necessary supplies, especially food), parents do. Try taking kids on road trips and such and you will see that these inexpensive toys are necessary for keeping the peace.

Now sure, a hunter's cache might imply that there are dry socks, MRE's and ammo inside. A fisherman's cache might be extra lures (and dry socks). A family's cache would have toys in it for the kids and a beer for Dad.

Geocaching is a game (again from the FAQ: Geocaching is an entertaining adventure game for gps users.) Food has long been declared a no-no as it attracts animals. Knives and ammo have been ruled out to keep liability away. This is a family-friendly game, so toys are welcome. The logbook was added to keep score (why would a hunter or a fisherman have a logbook for visitors?).

Sorry if you don't see it this way, but that's how the site is run.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by trippy1976:

Not saying there's no value in virtuals, but I'd love to see them just have a moritorium. They're such a hassle and bone of contention and really - we can live without them. Just zap them! Then all these complaint threads about the approval process can go away and we can go back to the black and white of the traditionals.

Such an optimist. We'd then just continue arguing about other aspects of the game...

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

6.4k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking:
Your link for ecoscavenger doesn't work. I was a bit interested in checking it out too.

It used to work. Check out google.com's listings for it. If you look at the cached pages, you can get an idea how the site looked. Pretty nice site, dedicated to virtual caches. Looks like they pulled the plug already and wet belly up? Guess that says something, I'll leave it for everyone else to decide what that something is.

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

6.4k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Johnnyvegas:
In the N. Cal. Bay area you cannot get a virtual approved anymore, I as well as other cachers have run into a ploicy of no viruals being allowed, it seems what was once a guidline is now a hard and fast rule for cachers in this area.

This statement appears to be out and out false. As far as I know, most states are covered by 1-2 approvers. Each city does not have their own. It looks like California has quite a few recent virtuals, including ones in Northern California. I see a lot more newly approved virtuals there in California then I see here in NJ. NJ as a state has the highest density of caches then any other place on earth except Washington, DC, yet there have been only 11 virtual caches approved here this year. Most other states I looked at seem about the same, percentage -wise. So it seems like every place is pretty consistent about (not) getting virtuals approved, if anything, California seems to more of them approved then many other states.

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

1.4k · August 13, 2003

As an approver I'll throw in my two cents worth.

Every one of the approvers will spend more time on a single virtual cache review than on any other cache they look at on a given day. Most of the time we'll look at it and put it on hold to give us more time to review it. We may email the placer for more information to help with our decision; we research the subject to see if the verification questions can be answered via the Internet. We look at the surrounding area to see if a physical is possible and we will often run the submission by the other approvers to get a variety of opinions.

I do not “archive first and ask questions later”. In most cases, I try to offer suggestions on how to modify the submission to make it in to an approvable cache. The thing is, most of the virtuals I see can be made into a physical cache with just a little creativity. I’ve started a collection of some of the great micro containers I’ve come across on my website.

What Jeremy said near the start of this thread is clear:

quote:
<snip> Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it. If you must create a virtual cache its best to bring the idea up before doing the research. Expect a no first and a yes in extraordinary situations.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Ask yourself this question:

If, ‘he who shall not be named’ had posted coordinates to a historical marker in downtown Portland instead of hiding a physical container, would geocaching be around today?

___________________________________________________________

Don't mind us, we're just looking for tupperware in this bush.

August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
Geocaching is a game (again from the FAQ: Geocaching is an entertaining adventure game for gps users.) Food has long been declared a no-no as it attracts animals. Knives and ammo have been ruled out to keep liability away. This is a family-friendly game, so toys are welcome. The logbook was added to keep score (why would a hunter or a fisherman have a logbook for visitors?).

Sorry if you don't see it this way, but that's how the site is run.

And how many fairies are dancing on the head of a pin?

August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:
Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Why do event caches still exist? The significance of dictionary definitions pales in the light of inconsistancy. I wax poetic..

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

9.4k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by bigeddy:
And how many fairies _are_ dancing on the head of a pin?

I think the original text was angels, not fairies:

Two, or five, or seventeen, or an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin at once, because they don't take up space the way we do.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

3k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Why do event caches still exist?

Event caches exist, as I understand it, so that people can log them multiple times, equal to the number of temporary caches (+1, of course) that were placed for the duration of the event.

Of course, temporary caches were also banished, so I don't know why anyone would be claiming finds on them. I suppose attending the event merely for the social aspect just isn't enough.

9.4k · August 13, 2003

I've only logged one find for each event cache I've attended. I even logged a DNF for an event I missed. (The truck broke down on the way there)

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

3k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
I've only logged one find for each event cache I've attended. I even logged a DNF for an event I missed.

You obviously attended solely for the social aspect.

1.1k · August 13, 2003

I think Virtuals should be totally allowed just like a regular cache. I just came back from 2 weeks in Arizona, and of the 36 caches we found, 17 of those were virtuals and I can honestly say that almost all (not every, but most) of these virtuals were just as interesting and most even more than any of the physical cahces that we found there. With the virtuals we spent time learning about and admiring the sites, instead of what most of us do with Physical caches and that is find the box, sign the log, trade and leave. They were also a lot more interesting than the abundance of micros littering the area that only contain a log and nothing else.

I have yet to place a virtual, but I will probably place one one day, but it is frusting to go to the trouble of placing a cache, whether physical or virtual to have them disapproved (I haven't had any disapproved yet fortunately, but a number where seriously questioned (the good ones, whereas the lamer ones aren't...I know just coincidence), and that just put a damper on it for me to consider hiding any more...plus every time an approver wants to not approve a cache, they always come up with the same "form" type e-mail with just "general" reasons why a cache was disapproved). So for now I will stick with hunting for caches, whether they be physical or virtual. But the more I think about it and that guidelines are great to have, I think that rules would save everyone a lot more time.

If the admins want to put virtuals in a different section of the site like they have with Benchmarking, so be it, but that isn't happening yet.

What ever happened to locationless caches? so many are being archived and there was only supposed to be a moratorium on them for a few months, which I think was over 3 months ago.

http://ca.geocities.com/geocachingcanada <---NEW!

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

6.4k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
And I quote:

_The overall intent for virtual and reverse virtual caches is to focus on the unique as opposed to the commonplace or mundane._

_A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail/beach/view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are. _

_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._

I guess some folks just want further clarification...

There already IS further clarification, just read the rest of the guidelines for submitting a virtual cache:

If after reading the guidelines below you believe you have a compelling reason why your potential posting should be approved, state your rationale clearly in a note to the administrators at the top of your submission.

and

Typically, the cache "hider” creates a virtual cache at a location where physical caches are not permitted.

also

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why a regular geocache – perhaps a micro or only a log book - couldn’t be placed there?” If there is a good answer, then it may be a valid virtual cache opportunity. Also, consider making the location a step in a multi-stage cache, with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

and

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. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered through library or web research.

None of this is new. These are the same guidelines that have been there for ages. This also says, all nice and pretty like, with lots of words, what Jeremy stated at the top of the thread. I have no problems with well thought out virtuals, I do them, I've placed them, and some of my personal favorite top 10% have been virtuals. That being said, every single time I've read someone here complaining they are being treated unfairly, or inconsistantly because their virtual cache was not approved, it always ends up that the cache fails on one or more points of the stated guidelines.

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

6.4k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
I've only logged one find for each event cache I've attended.

Same here, I never quite understood the whole practice of logging an event mulitple times because you found temp caches. I thought the whole idea of temp caches at an event was to do them for FUN? Since the caches are not listed on this website, why would I log them here? That would be like finding a cache listed on one of those "other" caching sites that wasn't listed here, and then logging a cache here twice so I get a gc.com smiley for the cache that wasn't posted on gc.com.

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

August 13, 2003

The problem with virtuals is that some are lame. However, traditional caches also suffer this very same problem. It is arguable which category has more lame caches than the other.

There is no way to know when you set out to find a cache whether it is lame or not. Most people are too polite to write in the log "this cache is lame, stay away".

The solution is to provide a way to anonymously rate a cache when you log it. Plus, you should be able to search for nearest caches with a quality rating greater than some level.

Caches (whether traditional or virtual) that get poor ratings will fall into disfavor, and can eventually be archived.

This simple technical feature will allow natural selection to decide which caches survive. Let the people rate the caches, and take the onus and load off the approvers to decide the quality.

3k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
That would be like finding a cache listed on one of those "other" caching sites that wasn't listed here, and then logging a cache here twice so I get a gc.com smiley for the cache that wasn't posted on gc.com.

You mean there exists a cache on one of those "other" sites that wasn't listed here first? Really?

6.4k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
That would be like finding a cache listed on one of those "other" caching sites that wasn't listed here, and then logging a cache here twice so I get a gc.com smiley for the cache that wasn't posted on gc.com.

You mean there exists a cache on one of those "other" sites that wasn't listed here first? Really?

Yea, lets see, there are solohiker's, lowracer's, and everyone else who didn't like something someone said or did here and took their ball and went to a different playground.

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

38.2k · August 13, 2003

I have nothing more to add to this thread, but I want to get to 4,000 posts. I want to be the BruceS, CCCooperagency and Stayfloopy of the forums.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

Yea, lets see, there are solohiker's, lowracer's, and everyone else who didn't like something someone said or did here and took their ball and went to a different playground.

I am not sure what the reference is here.

My comments have been directed at the admin group and their approach taken to enforce their own policies.

If a cacher attempts to support the policies, admin either does nothing or they over react and crap in everyone's mess kit.

I would like to see more consitancy as many of the other cachers have commented. I certainly don't appreciate the admin group placing the blame on the messenger.

I would like to see this hobby run more like a business instead of being a business run like a hobby.

2.3k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
I have nothing more to add to this thread, but I want to get to 4,000 posts. I want to be the BruceS, CCCooperagency and Stayfloopy of the forums.

My friend, you have some serious extra time on your hands!!! Congrats on 4k!

Listen since you have so much time, my lawn is in desparate need of a mowing....

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

3k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
Yea, lets see, there are ...

I'm not talking about caches that were originally posted here and then archived here and left *there* when someone "had an issue" ... I'm talking about *original* caches.

Ah, I just realized all the caches that fail to get approved here probably get posted *there* without hesitation.

August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by solohiker:
I would like to see this hobby run more like a business instead of being a business run like a hobby.

Agreed. At this point, I don't intend on renewing my "premium" membership, or spending any more money on geocaching.com items.

Thankfully there are alternatives.

George

Attention Jeremy and Geocaching.com

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

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment