Jump to content

Should I claim a virtual find if I didn't find the regular cache?


beejay&esskay
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Dixons Branch Bridge

 

Dixons Branch Bridge cache had been a regular cache, but the owner changed it to a virtual because the cache was found and taken too many times.

 

I tried to find the regular cache on August 9th and failed. Nobody ever found the cache at that location. In early October, it was made a virtual cache with no confirmation question required.

 

So, should I claim a find since I saw the bridge while I was searching for the regular cache? Or do I need to visit it again?

Link to comment

Isn't 'changing' a regular cache to a virtual without getting permission not okay? Since it's now impossible to edit the cache type, a number of people local to us have simply decided to add in the description that their plundered cache is now a 'virtual' and people should log it as such. Usually these sorta-virtuals have little or no verification, and aren't things that would have been approved as virtuals originally. Maybe this bridge is interesting enough, and maybe the plundering of the cache proves that it's not possible to have a physical at this location, but still, shouldn't they run it by the admins and get the type changed? At that point, when there's actual verification in place, you can either log it as a virt on the day you were first there (presuming you got enough info to verify it as a find), or revisit and get what they're now asking for.

 

I find the pseudo-virtual tactic annoying, because these still show up as physical caches in searches. I assume the reason for not being allowed to edit cache types is because TPTB want stronger control over virts. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but a mis-typed cache is just a bad thing. If it's called a regular cache, it should be one.

Link to comment

I vote to archive the cache. I think its lame to change a physical cache to a virtual.

 

If the owner thinks it should be a virtual, it should be re-submitted as a NEW virtual cache.

 

Personally I'd be pissed if I looked at my found count and found that my physical finds just went down by one, and my virtual finds went up, since I stopped doing virtuals a long time ago.

 

Lil Devil

Link to comment

This cache has been archived. Cache owners are no longer able to change the cache type, specifically to prevent this from happening. As mtn-man said, this bypasses the approval process and the approvers have been told to immediately archive a cache when this happens. If the cache can meet the virtual guidelines it can be unarchived. Otherwise, the container should be replaced.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...