What to do about virtuals?

[+Bubba Cache]

This may help shed some light on how people feel. Seems like it is a heated topic, LOL.

 

PS

What happened to Grajek?

 

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

[+pnew]

After we vote on this poll can we have a poll on whether or not people like these polls??

 

[+Bubba Cache]

As a matter of fact that was my next idea. Then after that, my next poll will be what your icon is:

A. A turd with a mouth

B. Runaway hair piece

C. Upside down black pokeman

D. Alien mutated choclate ice cream bar

 

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

[+tozainamboku]

I vote to continue to treat virtuals just the way they are. I like virtuals, though most are really just "go someplace and read a plaque". Virtuals are also the only way to get a cache placed in a National Park or other area that bans physical caches. The current system discourages virtuals by making them meet ambiguous guidelines that are inconsistently applied. The current system allows just enough virtual caches to enable those who want to do virtuals to do them and encourages lame 1/1 physical caches instead to satisfy the people who insist they haven't found a cache unless there is a log to sign and McToys to trade.

 

By the way I think Pnew's avatar is a man-eating GPSr

 

東西南北

Why do I always find it in the last place I look?

[+SamLowrey]

I have mixed feelings. I didn't like them at first (still hard to get fired up about them) but (I really hate to say this) I thought this is the way it is going to go eventually. I am thankful every day that these traditional caches escape radar, but one day the various park bureacracies are going to make it difficult to do. And the sad thing is that most the park people are reasonable enough to let it slide, but all it takes is a vocal minority to run around like Chicken Little and everyone will go along with them.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I really like virtuals. Many of them are nicely done, that I've gone to at least. I resent those who are trying to eliminate them. I can't do difficult hikes, yet I don't try to eliminate them. If placing them in a separate category like benchmarks will save them, then I'm all for it.

 

If the powers that be need help to deal with virtuals, then here I am. Use me. I volunteer. I volunteer for locationless as well.

[horse&rider]

Just to add my 2 cents in. I think Virtual are fine because when I travel to different countries it will give me extra places to go and experience that I might not have seen befoer.

[+CacheUsOut]

I like all kinds of caches, virtuals and even the dreaded locationless caches.

 

Variety is the spice of my geocaching life.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I want to see a sunrise, I'll STAY up for it!

[+carleenp]

quote:

---

I like all kinds of caches, virtuals and even the dreaded locationless caches.

---

 

I didn't think I liked locationless until I was driving down the interstate and saw a yellow jeep in front of me. Then, I realized my GPS and camera were sitting on the passenger seat beside me. So, I turned on the GPS, took a pic (a little hard when driving) and logged it. My first, and likely last, locationless!

 

[Tahosa and Sons]

Keep the Virtuals. Let them stand alone. In due time one can create a traditional using the Virts as stepping stones to the real caches. I have 21 virts out there, some are a wee bit lame compared to the others but that is the learning curve. I'm not from the Emerald City so I don't know how to make it perfect the first time, quality takes time.

 

When CarleenP visits CO next summer I believe (hope) she will Do Corey's Friends a comprehensive virtual, and there is a locationless Cache mixed in with this one. After all Corey (Lil Tahosa) is going to help plant Cameron's Cache next week.

 

Tahosa - Dweller of Mountain Tops.

[OuttaHand]

I voted to keep them but regulate them a bit more. What I mean here is that if a person can put a REAL cache there, then the virt gets archived immediately with no debate. But if there's no way to put a real one there, why not have the virt? I have 4 caches hidden, this one is a virt and there are several comments by finders that they appreciated it. I think there is definitely a place for virts -- do NOT do away with them.

[+Mark 42]

I'd say, in agreement with some on another thread, that the owner of a virtual should reply to emails sent to him or her.

 

If he doesn't to several people, then archive it.

 

On the archiving topic... I'd like to see the text that shows it as archived made more conspicuous. I missed that one was archived, but luckily I did see it before trying to actually find it (came close to searching for it though).

 

"I'm not Responsible... just ask my wife,

She'll confirm it"

[+Breaktrack]

The same old arguements. Nothing new. Virtuals should have just as much regulation as traditionals. In other words, yes, they should be something interesting, out of the ordinary perhaps, etc... but to say they should not be placed if a traditional, even a micro, could be placed anywhere in the vicinity is just taking it a little too far. I go out of my way to make sure none of my caches are lame by current definitions, whether virtual or traditional. I have hit many a lame traditional, trust me, but you don't see any of my logs running down anyone elses cache, ever. If I have any concerns about a specific cache, none of you will ever know about it unless you are the owner of the cache and you get my e-mail. If no reponse, or you can't be bothered, guess what? That's it, I move on. Your lame tupperware container that leaks like a sieve can sit there till Armageddon for all I care. Once I've done my best to try and get someone to take responsibility for maintaining their cache, I feel no obligation to come into the forums and make some kind of case and cause a stir, nor do I e-mail TPTB to get them on it. I have to take care of way too much stuff on my real job to do it in Geocaching, thanks.

 

The point being, virtuals are not the problem. Even if a virtual cache is abandoned, it's VIRTUAL for crying out loud! There is no Geotrash left out for someone to have to clean up. There is no backlash by a park who finds it placed without permission, there are no bomb squads heading out to open it up with a disrupter, it's a VIRTUAL! A click of the mouse and it's archived and history.

 

The neatest thing is, I haven't lost a single virtual to a hurricane....lol. Wish I could say that about my traditionals....

 

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

[+Mark 42]

A new virtuals still approved in areas where real caches are prohibitted (like National Parks)?

 

"I'm not Responsible... just ask my wife,

She'll confirm it"

[+Breaktrack]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark 42:

A new virtuals still approved in areas where real caches are prohibitted (like National Parks)?

 

_ "I'm not Responsible... just ask my wife,

She'll confirm it" _

---

 

Ya know, that's a good question. However, I think they took care of that by making the new No Vacation Caches rule apply to virtuals. Since no one but Rangers live in the parks, and they are certainly not going to create any caches, then I guess there is nobody to put up virtuals in the parks, yes?

 

And you guys thought TPTB were dumb, boy, did they fool you!!!

 

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

[Tahosa and Sons]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Breaktrack:

Ya know, that's a good question. However, I think they took care of that by making the new No Vacation Caches rule apply to virtuals. Since no one but Rangers live in the parks, and they are certainly not going to create any caches, then I guess there is nobody to put up virtuals in the parks, yes?

And you guys thought TPTB were dumb, boy, did they fool you!!!

http://www.texasgeocaching.com

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

---

 

I live outside of the RMNP so I can go down the street from my house, make a virtual, and not be on vacation. I'm going to the Northern approaches of RMNP next week, maybe I can try a virtual up there.

Breaktrack do you live on a Mtn. in CO, one known as Pikes Peak??

 

Tahosa - Dweller of Mountain Tops.

[+bigredmed]

I like some of the VC's I have found and they are the only kind allowed in federal land. Until this can get changed, we need to keep them. I am really hopeful that the ban on Locationless caches continues, these have been really uninspiring. I voted to move the VC's into a separate category just to maintain some degree of comparability between cache totals.

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nebraskache/

[+Moore9KSUcats]

I voted for a seperate catagory, just to stop the arguments! Other than that, I have no strong opinion one way or another. When the maps still worked, I would hunt virtuals to get the 'unfound' off the map. After that I pretty much ignored them. Then on a recent trip to DC, we actively sought them because we didn't have time for a traditional hunt. BTW, the virtuals on the National Mall make a great tour guide!

[Keystone]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark 42:

A new virtuals still approved in areas where real caches are prohibitted (like National Parks)?

---

As with any other cache type, the admins will approve a virtual cache that complies with the guidelines for that cache type. Some of my recent favorites here in Pennsylvania include:

Marie Zimmerman Stone House - unique architecture; located in a National Recreation Area

East Broad Top Railroad - only operating narrow gauge steam railroad east of the Rockies; no place to put a traditional cache that wasn't within feet of the active railroad tracks, or on adjoining private property

The Sacred Oak - oldest living oak tree in the U.S.; located on private property; farmer allows people to cross his farm field to see the tree, but a physical cache can't be placed in an active farm field

 

These are just a few of the dozen or so virtuals I've approved in the past month or so. (I've also archived a larger number of submissions that did NOT comply with the guidelines.)

 

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

Saving the day and approving all the caches... before bedtime!

[+Bubba Cache]

I started a post concerning the "consistency" of the approval process of caches, namely, virtual ones. It spawned a LONG thread that had many sides to it, some being pretty passionate about their opinions. But the key word there is OPINION. I e-mailed Jeremy annd told him that I really hadn't meant to cause any headache to him or anyone at geocaching.com but to address a problem I have noticed as well as others. So, I listened to all of the ideas, placed this poll on here, so they could get a feel of how people feel. The choices were NOT mine alone, but rather based on the predominate ideas that were mentioned over and over. So far around 60 have voted. Sure, thats not all the geocachers of the world, BUT it is evident what the majority opinion is: Make virtuals seperate. I hope that those who run geocaching.com, like Jeremy, listen. I thank those who took the time to vote on the poll. I appreciate the opportunity to have a taste of democracy on geocaching.com. As another cacher who posted on my "Attention Jeremy" thread, "The choir is singing, but is anyone listening?" Lets hope they are.

 

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

[+Moosiegirl]

I voted "put them in a separate area" because I feel like it is the only way to loosen up the virtual rules for us who like them, and still keep the purists happy. I don't care if they are in a separate area as long as my stats page will still show them (as it does benchmarks). If Geocaching.com wants to get my money next year this thing is going to have to be resolved; otherwise our $60 will go bye-bye with the others who are upset about the clampdown on all non-traditionals.

 

quote:

---

... I can quit any time I like ... really, I CAN!!

---

 

Candy (Moosiegirl)http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralTexasGeocachers/

[+The Outlaw]

I voted to put them in a separate place. My preference would have been not to make the rules more strict, but at least more consistent and less subjective, but that wasn't a choice.

 

As far as Grajek is concerned, after his last post his account was apparently locked out, or at the least he can't seem to log on. Since his post was not vulgar, flaming, or unprofessional, I can only hope he is just having some local issues on his box and not banned from the site for simply stating an opinion. Since the message he is getting is some strange sort of script error and not a specific no user account exists message, I tend to think it is not intentional.

 

Wayne (The Outlaw) Geocacher, Poison Ivy magnet, and Chigger food.

[+carleenp]

quote:

---

When CarleenP visits CO next summer I believe (hope) she will Do Corey's Friends a comprehensive virtual, and there is a locationless Cache mixed in with this one. After all Corey (Lil Tahosa) is going to help plant Cameron's Cache next week.

---

 

I'm definitely planning on it!

 

[+Mrs. Captain Picard]

There was nothing wrong with virtuals the way they were before they started getting rejected. I can say for certain that some virtuals I have gone on have all the adventure and surprise that a good cache has. I've been to some places that have blown me away, but I would have NEVER gone there but for a virtual. It is ALWAYS MY CHOICE which caches I go after. I want all my choices available to me on one website.

[+Hiemdahl]

So what is the big fuss about virtuals? On various business trips I have placed them, 1. at the Berlin wall, 2. The airport in El Centro, CA, the Marine memorial at Camp Lejune, NC, and the Pegasus Bridge in Arnhem Holland.

 

The one at Camp Lejune was a traditional cache until 9/11 and Marine Security removed it. In all of the other cases a traditional cache would have been inappropriate or impossible. (plus the fact that cache maintenance is difficult if you only get back once a year or so.)

 

The seeker has the choice of looking for it or not. You vote with your logs. A lame cache will go away if there is no traffic, and the cacher will expend more effort the next time.

[+sept1c_tank]

I like the few virt/locationless caches I have done. We don't need a seperate category. We all just need to learn to live with the fact that we don't all think alike. I say, go caching and let the approvers deal with each problem on an individual basis. Can you imagine how it would be if we all had a say every time an issue arose?

 

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

 

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

 

.

[+Bubba Cache]

Hiemdahl, to answer your question about the fuss over virtuals,let me refer you to this thread here. Hope this helps.

 

"Freedom is never given, it is won" A. Phillip Randolph

 

God bless

[+Hiemdahl]

Thanks for the link. But I just had a vision of trying to explain to the Dutch police what I was doing shoving an ammo box into the support structure of a bridge over the Rhine river near a major military base.

 

They were less than amused when I ended up driving the wrong way down a bus lane into oncoming traffic. The ammo box would be even harder to explain.

[+Bubba Cache]

The ammo box under the Rhine river is funny, guess maybe they thought you were reenacting a part of WWII, LOL. Did they ask you for "your papers"

 

"Freedom is never given, it is won" A. Phillip Randolph

 

God bless

[+DougsBrat]

Polls closed already?

I can't vote!

 

Thats weard! after my post now I can vote

[+Bubba Cache]

Polls closed? I didn't do that??

 

"Freedom is never given, it is won" A. Phillip Randolph

 

God bless

[+mtn-man]

Poll is not closed... I voted.

 

I voted:

D. Alien mutated chocolate ice cream bar

[+Hiemdahl]

[ Did they ask you for "your papers"]

 

Only when I was driving the wrong way down a "busses only" lane during rush hour.

[+Quest Master]

I voted to create a separate area. I don't like virts but many people do and too much hate and discontent between virt hiders and TPTB has been created by the somewhat subjective, sometimes arbitrary, and otherwise difficult guidelines that the approvers must try to enforce for this category of geocache. I think that the approvers are getting bogged down with these in very much the same way that they got beaten up by locationless caches. It's high time for geocaching.com to decide whether to continue with them or not.

 

I would vote to eliminate them entirely if Jeremy says that too many virts would drag down the site.

 

Johnny

[+nincehelser]

It's funny how these results don't jibe with the "official" position that most people hate virtuals.

 

George

[+The Leprechauns]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nincehelser:

It's funny how these results don't jibe with the "official" position that most people hate virtuals.

---

The poll doesn't ask what you think of virtuals, but rather, what ought to be done with them. I'll bet there are others who voted based on the reasoning outlined by Quest Master above. You can dislike virtual caches but still vote to put them in a separate area, out of consideration for those people who enjoy finding them. That's how I voted. About 20 percent of the virtuals I've found have been truly cool places that made me say "wow." I would visit these regardless of whether they counted as geocaches, or were in their own section like benchmarks. Most of the rest, I've done just to get them off my list or because they were right on the way to another cache. If they don't show up in a nearest caches search, or on a map, I'm sure I'll only go looking for the virtual caches that truly interest me.

 

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

Next time, instead of getting married, I think I'll just find a woman I don't like and buy her a house.

[+Bubba Cache]

I agree with "The Leprechauns" about most people voted based on their respect of others being different than they are. That was my hopes, that people would see how some people liek them, some don't but a decision needs to be made to help all involved parties. I like traditional ones better by far, but I like the virtual one every now and them. I like nincehelser was surprised att he results. When I posted a few days ago about inconsistencies on approvals, alot of people seemed to be of the mindset,"Do away with them all together". Now, as the poll has shown, close to 70% either think that virtuals need to be seperate or rules changed. So I hope TPTB do something and not just let this go on and on.

 

"Freedom is never given, it is won" A. Phillip Randolph

 

God bless

[+nincehelser]

Oh, I agree. It's just that from what you hear from TPTB, people want virtuals to be banned. They hate them and can't stand them.

 

I'm not suprised at the results. I've seen no legitimate popular support for the banning of virtuals. The people who want to do away with them are a very small (but vocal) minority.

 

The poll shows (currently) that only 3% want them off the site. TPTB need to do a reality check.

 

Personally, I don't think virts need to be moved to a different segment. I don't care if they are or not, but it just doesn't seem worth the effort to me.

 

George

[+Retired]

I voted to "Create a separate area for them like benchmarks". They are the only kind of caches that I can get my wife of 40 years to hunt. Don't want to give up geocaching but sure don't want to break in a new wife over the issue. They have guided us to many interesting sites that we would have otherwise missed. I'm not real concerned with my stats - just enjoy the hunt.

[+pnew]

Hey Bubba Cache you got me with that reply...all in good fun

 

now about virtuals, I don't see the big fuss over them. If geocaching.com could tell cache approvers to be more strict on them and go back to the original "needs to have a WOW factor" rule then everything would be hunky doorie. Its those approvers that go ahead and approve the water faucets, fire hydrants, and other virtuals that aren't appealing who are dropping the ball. God only likes the virtuals he made... but who wouldn't.

 

[+Lothar69]

The poll results have surprised me so far. As I stated in previous thread that led to this poll, I think there is room enough for types of caches. People can choose for themselves what caches they will seek. Seems to me the Magellen vs. Garmin or the Ford vs. Chevy arguments are the same. Some prefer one over the other but noone is seriously screaming to have one banned.

 

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

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

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

[+nincehelser]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothar69:

Some prefer one over the other but noone is seriously screaming to have one banned.

---

 

Not true. Jeremy himself has recently told people not to expect virtuals to be approved.

 

If that's not effectively a ban, then I don't know what is.

 

George

[+Breaktrack]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tahosa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Breaktrack:

Ya know, that's a good question. However, I think they took care of that by making the new No Vacation Caches rule apply to virtuals. Since no one but Rangers live in the parks, and they are certainly not going to create any caches, then I guess there is nobody to put up virtuals in the parks, yes?

And you guys thought TPTB were dumb, boy, did they fool you!!!

http://www.texasgeocaching.com

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

---

 

I live outside of the RMNP so I can go down the street from my house, make a virtual, and not be on vacation. I'm going to the Northern approaches of RMNP next week, maybe I can try a virtual up there.

Breaktrack do you live on a Mtn. in CO, one known as http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0f864e24-4717-45d5-ab6d-866a4fa7691f??

 

Tahosa - Dweller of Mountain Tops.

---

 

I will start out with the hope you are not trying to start something by being sarcastic, and simply didn't look at the date the cache was created and realize it was BEFORE the rules changed and was grandfathered in. So, the simple answer is, no, I do not live near pike's peak, nor do I live near the Little Bighorn Battlefield Park, or a volcano in New Mexico, or a wonderful site in Yellowstone National Park, or several forts in Florida... however, I do answer my e-mails and communicate with anyone who contacts me about my virtuals. Which is a lot more than can be said for some people and their traditional caches. I've seen more lame traditionals than I have lame virtuals, but, I do understand it is only my opinion, therefore I do not point out these things. If others would act in the same manner this would not be a matter of contention between us.

 

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

[+Lothar69]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nincehelser:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothar69:

Some prefer one over the other but noone is seriously screaming to have one banned.

---

 

Not true. Jeremy himself has recently told people not to expect virtuals to be approved.

 

If that's not effectively a ban, then I don't know what is.

 

George

---

 

Just a point of clarification. I was not saying that noone was screaming to have virtuals banned. It is abundantly clear that many people are. My comment was referencing the Ford/Chevy or Garmin/Magellen debates. Chevy lovers aren't screaming for Fords to be banned. They just like to pee on them. Maybe those who would like to ban virtuals need to adopt this as their logo:

 

 

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

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

 

24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not. - Stephen Wright

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

[G.O. Mental]

it has been raining for a couple of days so i have spent the time to find and read any thread discussing virtuals (yeah i know...kinda sad...but very enlightening!!).

 

****in my opinion (based on what i have read)**** the overall issue is not the existence of virtual caches. it is not even whether a virtual cache meets the necessary requirements for placement.

 

rather, it seems to be the result of a progression of events. the growing number of cachers submitting any type of cache has overwhelmed the relatively small number of approvers, some of whom began archiving many virtuals in favor of more traditional caches, even when the virtuals met all posted criteria. subsequent commnucation between approvers and submitters often became hostile. approvers were overwhelmed and sometimes used subjective judgement in archiving caches. submitters felt they were not given proper justification for the decision. tempers flared and as the conflicts were made public many other people jumped in to defend one side or the other. as is the case elsewhere in our society the side with influence and favor in 'higher places' were deemed to be 'in the right'. of course this only prompted more disagreement, resulting in at lease one 'forced withdrawal' from the site and many people have left voluntarily.

 

personally i like the choice of having virtuals available. even if i dont like a particular cache, someone might....and that applies to all cache types.

 

what i find most disturbing about all this is that more administrative energy was put into defending administrative position than was used to address the initial condition.

 

if there where more people involved in the approval process, this whole thing might have been avoided.

 

as always, YMMV.

 

'when i get bored with geocaching.....BOOOOOOM!.....then i can enjoy my view of venus' - geomarvin

 

-t-

[+Bubba Cache]

tkalen, I could't agree more. I feel you have expressed the problem better than any of us, including myself. I hope that the admins can see that this problem CAN be fixed by looking atthe polls. These ideas are NOT mine, but other ideas that I have gotton from other geocachers. There needs not be a split amongst us. Just fix the way virtuals are viewed. Thank you again, for your well-though, and tactful approach to this subject. The teacher in me gives you a smiley face. (Although I teach high school and that sounds soooo elementary, LOL)

 

"Freedom is never given, it is won" A. Phillip Randolph

 

God bless

[Nosamk]

Personally I enjoy the virtuals....all of the ones I have found in the short time I've been in this 'sport' have been interesting and directed me to places I might not have wandered.

 

I say leave them alone.

[+woodsters]

On the About us page it says over 9000 account holders. You would think that out of that 9000, he could find an easy 50-100 more people to volunteer to approve or in some other capacity. I'm not sure how many approvers there even are, but when I see a handful speak on the message board, they are covering more than one state and then even then they are covering states that are no where near them.

 

Brian

 

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

[Keystone]

Woodsters,

There are more than 30 approvers. This year, in response to the continuing exponential growth of the sport, the approval process has, by and large, been regionalized. New ones are added as justified by demand (volume of new caches hidden). In May, I was asked to become the approver for Pennsylvania because I live here, and I'm familiar with the fairly complex rules that govern cache placements on state land. I also cover part of Ohio... but ONLY the part I'm familiar with, from caching and traveling there. There are regional approvers in many, many other states... most of them rarely post in the forums as I do. There are approvers based in five countries outside the U.S. where caching is active.

 

As to your suggestion that adding 50 to 100 more approvers would solve the problems with virtual caches, may I respectfully suggest that it would, instead, make the problems worse. With all the complaints about approver judgments being subjective, imagine what it would be like with several times as many approvers making the decisions. We have enough of a challenge right now trying to stay on the same page with an evolving sport. The approvers are able to do that pretty effectively using our private forum and other tools. We discuss new cache issues just about every day, and do our best to reach consensual decisions.

 

I hope that this information is helpful to you.

 

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

Saving the day and approving all the caches... before bedtime!

[+tozainamboku]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tkalen:

 

if there where more people involved in the approval process, this whole thing might have been avoided.

---

 

I'm not sure that the problem is too few admins. Recently there have been a lot of new admins added. Seems like everyplace has its own regional admin. The more people doing the admin job,

• the more likely the guidelines are applied inconsistently,
• the more likely some admins can't take the heat and will act rashly,
• the more likely some caches get approved that shouldn't have been.

 

Of course the sport has grown exponentially. More admins are needed just to get through the pile of new caches that gets submitted. And there is probably a need to have more guidelines to make sure that we have a mix of caches so that everyone can enjoy this sport. And to prevent the placement of caches that cause friction between geocachers and other groups. I feel Jeremy and others are trying to do there best to keep geocaching growing. I'm sure that they consider polls and comments in these forums in making decisions, but they have other things to consider in making these decision as well.

 

東西南北

Why do I always find it in the last place I look?