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

[+beejay&esskay]

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?

[+CYBret]

I'd say contact the owner, find out what he'd want you to do. If he's satisfied that you've been there chances are he'll be happy to let you log it.

 

Bret

 

"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field.

When a man found it, he hid it again." Mt. 13:44

CYBret's Geocaching Page

[+cachefamily]

I would agree with CYBret. It's really up to the cache owner. If it's close by, I would just visit the virtual and log it.

[SombreHippie]

I'd say as long as you have all the virtual verifications needed, or a pic of your GPS and the bridge, go for it and backdate it.

 

A great serial killer once said, "Beauty is only skin deep. Trust me, I've looked..."

[+Kite and Hawkeye]

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.

[+Lil Devil]

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

[+mtn-man]

No, they should not change a cache from a traditional to a virtual. It bypasses the approval process. They should replace the cache or archive it and give someone else a chance to place a cache there.

 

Sorry, but the cache will most likely be archived.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

[+beejay&esskay]

Thanks for the input. I canceled my find, since I never found the regular cache and the change to virtual wasn't approved.

 

There are plenty of places to hide a regular in the park where the covered bridge is, so maybe a new cache will be resubmitted in the future.

[+Crow T Robot]

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.