Two virtual gliches...

November 5, 2003

I've noticed a couple 'glitches' when it comes to virtual caches...

1) It seems people can (and do) log virtual caches that have been archived. (I guess they can do this with traditional caches as well, but it would be rather silly to do so.)

2) If a traditional cache has been changed to a virtual (yes I realize this isn't supposed to happen anymore, but...), your cache breakdown is altered. That's to say that if that traditional cache you found is made a virtual, you'll all of a sudden have one more virtual cache to your credit and one less traditional.

Yup, I definitely have too much time on my hands.

Cheers,

IntotheWoods

9.4k · November 5, 2003

All the more reason to move virtuals to the Benchmark section

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

1.4k · November 5, 2003

All the more reason to move virtuals to the Benchmark section

Whoa.... I agree that maybe there should be a change made with virtuals and, yes, I do like virtuals, but some of us that hunt benchmarks are pretty serious about it and benchmarks are definitely not a virtual cache. Benchmarks are part of the history of the USA and are actual objects that you can touch and experience the feeling that surveyors from over a century ago felt as they placed these very important marks. Also, by recovering benchmarks we are potentially helping the NGS and local surveyors.

Jeff

http://www.AlaCache.com

9.4k · November 5, 2003

Ah, so historical markers are not part of the history of the USA? I move that we ban all waypointing of markers that are not part of the history of the USA!

I knew someone would comment on what my post said rather than what it meant. I mean that virtuals should be placed in their own section, separate from real geocaches in the same manner that benchmarks are separate.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

2.1k · November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
I knew someone would comment on what my post said rather than what it meant. I mean that virtuals should be placed in their own section, separate from real geocaches in the same manner that benchmarks are separate.

No offense meant, but instead of "All the more reason to move virtuals to the Benchmark section" you should have said "All of the more reason to move virtuals to a Benchmark-like section". It lessens confusion to actually state what you meant.

</Grammar Police>

--

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than

the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

-George Bernard Shaw

November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by IntotheWoods:

2) If a traditional cache has been changed to a virtual (yes I realize this isn't supposed to happen anymore, but...),

Why not? I guess I must have missed something because I didn't realize this wasn't allowed. I have a micro-cache in a little park that would work pretty well as a virtual if the container ever went missing. I've done a couple of virtuals even though I prefer traditional caches, but sometimes circumstances in the immediate area force you to remove the stash even though the spot is still well worth visiting. I'd rather change it to a virtual and "recycle" the cache instead of archiving it and creating a new one in the same location. Cheers, biltal.

The bull doesn't always lose.

[This message was edited by biltal on November 05, 2003 at 03:26 PM.]

November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ju66l3r:

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
I knew someone would comment on what my post said rather than what it meant. I mean that virtuals should be placed in their own section, separate from real geocaches in the same manner that benchmarks are separate.

No offense meant, but instead of "All the more reason to move virtuals to the Benchmark section" you should have said "All of the more reason to move virtuals to _a_ Benchmark_-like_ section". It lessens confusion to actually state what you meant.

</Grammar Police>

I'm with ju66l3r, lets be clear in our statements yo

1.3k · November 5, 2003

I'm pretty sure that by saying "All the more reason to move virtuals to the Benchmark section", GPSaxohpone was referring to a hypothetical section containing waypoints that are of interest to cachers, but are not caches in the traditional sense of the word. Benchmarks, and virtuals would both fall under this category. I understood this immediately when I read their comment, without the benefit of the "grammar police".

As to the logging of finds on archived caches, I'm not sure that finds logged to archived caches actually are credited to your find count, so doing so might truly be pointless.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

1.5k · November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by biltal:

quote:
Originally posted by IntotheWoods:

2) If a traditional cache has been changed to a virtual (yes I realize this isn't supposed to happen anymore, but...),

Why not? I guess I must have missed something because I didn't realize this wasn't allowed. I have a micro-cache in a little park that would work pretty well as a virtual if the container ever went missing. I've done a couple of virtuals even though I prefer traditional caches, but sometimes circumstances in the immediate area force you to remove the stash even though the spot is still well worth visiting. I'd rather change it to a virtual and "recycle" the cache instead of archiving it and creating a new one in the same location. Cheers, biltal.

The bull doesn't always lose.

[This message was edited by biltal on November 05, 2003 at 03:26 PM.]

As far as I've heard, there are a number of cachers who, disliking virtuals, simply don't hunt them, and didn't want virtual finds suddenly appearing on their find list. I've even seen cachers who dislike multis. When some of the older, grnadfathered 'vacation' caches turned up missing, their owners simply chaned them to virts, since they were unable to maintain the cache. This happened to a number of caches in my area. The answer I got was that cachers should get credit for the type of cache they hunted, and if the container turns up missing the owner has the option of archiving, replacing the cahe, or, if they are unable to do so, allowing the cache to be adopted by a local who is able take care of it. Further issues were raised since many of these converted virtuals had no verification question, one of the requirements for a virt. These caches were eventually changed back to traditional caches and archived by the admins, allowing other caches to be placed in the area. Basically, people wanted to have credit for the type of cache they found, rather than what the cache is now. One reason was, hunting a virt is much different than hunting a container, and if the requirements change from logbook to virtual, people's find list shouldn't reflect this, since they went out looking for a physical cache originally.

"Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer." - J.R.R. Tolkien, on critics

November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by IntotheWoods:
1) It seems people can (and do) log virtual caches that have been archived. (I guess they can do this with traditional caches as well, but it would be rather silly to do so

Checking the validity of the logs is part of maintaining a virtual. In a perfect world, the cache owner would delete these.

quote:
Originally posted by IntotheWoods:
2) If a traditional cache has been changed to a virtual (yes I realize this isn't supposed to happen anymore, but...), your cache breakdown is altered. That's to say that if that traditional cache you found is made a virtual, you'll all of a sudden have one more virtual cache to your credit and one less traditional.

A valid concern, and one reason why cache types can no longer be changed by the cache owner. There should be no but....., if you see it still happening, it's a bug that should be reported to Groundspeak.

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

Personal slave of The Frog.

November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by biltal:

Why not? I guess I must have missed something because I didn't realize this wasn't allowed. I have a micro-cache in a little park that would work pretty well as a virtual if the container ever went missing. I've done a couple of virtuals even though I prefer traditional caches, but sometimes circumstances in the immediate area force you to remove the stash even though the spot is still well worth visiting. I'd rather change it to a virtual and "recycle" the cache instead of archiving it and creating a new one in the same location.

Because, like them, love them or hate them, hunting a virtual is different then hunting a physical cache, especially a micro. Virtual caches also have different guidelines they need to follow to be listed on geocaching.com . The fact that you had a physical cache at the location usually means a virtual cache at the location will not meet the guidelines to be listed here.

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

Personal slave of The Frog.

2.1k · November 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
I'm pretty sure that by saying "All the more reason to move virtuals to the Benchmark section", GPSaxohpone was referring to a hypothetical section containing waypoints that are of interest to cachers, but are not caches in the traditional sense of the word. Benchmarks, and virtuals would both fall under this category. I understood this immediately when I read their comment, without the benefit of the "grammar police".

Then maybe you need the help of the "reading everything" police and the "notice the winking smilie...it means take it easy, I'm just playing around" police.

The first police would have helped you see GPS' second post where it is written: "I mean that virtuals should be placed in their own section". GPS is a big boy and can speak for himself.

The second would have helped you take my grammar correction funtime with a bit more humor and a bit less vitriol.

--

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than

the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

-George Bernard Shaw

1.3k · November 5, 2003

quote:
vit·ri·ol [ víttree àwl ] (plural vit·ri·ols)

noun

1. bitter hatred: extreme bitterness and hatred toward somebody or something, or an expression of this feeling in speech or writing

Ok, then. How much vitriol is appropriate?

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

2.6k · November 5, 2003

Such Big Words!

Makes my head hurt!

November 5, 2003

I don't understand why some people think virtuals are so much easier than traditional caches. Some of the virtuals we have been on take alot of time and are really interesting. In Nevada City, CA, The American Way of Life cache was a multi virtual that had us all over town getting info at different sites to put in an equation to get to the final site to answer more questions. It took over two hours to complete and was fun and interesting. I like virtuals, tradionals, micros, whatever its all for fun and I think each one should be included into your cache total.

Everyone has a right to be stupid. Some just abuse the privilege

November 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Escapades:
...Some of the virtuals we have been on take alot of time and are really interesting...

Like this one or the 12 step virtual I have been solving for a year now and completed 6 steps so far.

1.3k · November 6, 2003

This virtual of mine is really not easy. I've been also thinking that FTF prize could be good to add to it.

3k · November 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:
... some of us that hunt benchmarks are pretty serious about it and benchmarks are definitely not a virtual cache. Benchmarks are part of the history of the USA and are actual objects that you can touch and experience the feeling that surveyors from over a century ago felt as they placed these very important marks. ...

Wow, you certainly are passionate about your benchmarking. But in truth, benchmarks very much ARE "virtual caches." I find the most enjoyable part about benchmarking is comparing the old location descriptions to the present conditions at/surrounding many of the sites. (Actually, I think that's more fun than actually locating the benchmark.)

1.3k · November 6, 2003

Well, at least benchmarks usually have accurate coordinates.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

3k · November 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by NJ Admin:
Checking the validity of the logs is part of maintaining a virtual. In a perfect world, the cache owner would delete these.

No, NO, NO!!!

"In a perfect world," there would be no need to delete fake logs, because there would be no such thing as a faked log.

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
Well, at least benchmarks usually have accurate coordinates.

"It ain't necessarily so." Many of the benchmarks around my area are in an old datum and are listed to only two decimal places. A deviation of a hundred feet or more is neither unusual nor unexpected.

1.4k · November 6, 2003

Wow, you certainly are passionate about your benchmarking

Yep... there's something about finding a beer bottle that was set as a surveying point 116 years-ago that is really cool. You can see the details here:

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=DH2455

Well, at least benchmarks usually have accurate coordinates

Well, not really. It depends if the benchmark is adjusted or scaled.

Jeff

http://www.AlaCache.com

1.4k · November 6, 2003

Here is another cool benchmark find I made. It's a hundred year old disk:

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=DH0704

Yes, I do like virtuals, but I have yet to find a virtual that was as thrilling as finding a true piece of American history. Yes, a lot of virtuals do teach us something about our surroundings and about our past but a mark such as the one I mention in this point and my previous one is something that was set by a surveyor 100 years-ago and is still useful today.

Can you tell that I really enjoy finding benchmarks?

Jeff

http://www.AlaCache.com

November 6, 2003

Well... let me imitate Capt. Morgan above and do some advertising to our new belover virt...

The Witches' Garden

Hope you will not consider it too easy... impossible to place a traditional cache there.

Acaro of Team Tar

November 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by DavidMac:

quote:
Originally posted by biltal:

quote:
Originally posted by IntotheWoods:

2) If a traditional cache has been changed to a virtual (yes I realize this isn't supposed to happen anymore, but...),

Why not? I guess I must have missed something because I didn't realize this wasn't allowed. I have a micro-cache in a little park that would work pretty well as a virtual if the container ever went missing. I've done a couple of virtuals even though I prefer traditional caches, but sometimes circumstances in the immediate area force you to remove the stash even though the spot is still well worth visiting. I'd rather change it to a virtual and "recycle" the cache instead of archiving it and creating a new one in the same location. Cheers, biltal.

The bull doesn't always lose.

[This message was edited by biltal on November 05, 2003 at 03:26 PM.]

As far as I've heard, there are a number of cachers who, disliking virtuals, simply don't hunt them, and didn't want virtual finds suddenly appearing on their find list. I've even seen cachers who dislike multis. When some of the older, grnadfathered 'vacation' caches turned up missing, their owners simply chaned them to virts, since they were unable to maintain the cache. This happened to a number of caches in my area. The answer I got was that cachers should get credit for the type of cache they hunted, and if the container turns up missing the owner has the option of archiving, replacing the cahe, or, if they are unable to do so, allowing the cache to be adopted by a local who is able take care of it. Further issues were raised since many of these converted virtuals had no verification question, one of the requirements for a virt. These caches were eventually changed back to traditional caches and archived by the admins, allowing other caches to be placed in the area. Basically, people wanted to have credit for the type of cache they found, rather than what the cache is now. One reason was, hunting a virt is much different than hunting a container, and if the requirements change from logbook to virtual, people's find list shouldn't reflect this, since they went out looking for a physical cache originally.

_"Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer." _- J.R.R. Tolkien, on critics

I see your point. I guess I was just looking at it from a cache owner's point of view rather than the seeker's. I can understand why someone might only want certain types of caches showing in their logs.

Chhers, biltal.

The bull doesn't always lose.

November 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by NJ Admin:

quote:
Originally posted by biltal:

Why not? I guess I must have missed something because I didn't realize this wasn't allowed. I have a micro-cache in a little park that would work pretty well as a virtual if the container ever went missing. I've done a couple of virtuals even though I prefer traditional caches, but sometimes circumstances in the immediate area force you to remove the stash even though the spot is still well worth visiting. I'd rather change it to a virtual and "recycle" the cache instead of archiving it and creating a new one in the same location.

Because, like them, love them or hate them, hunting a virtual is different then hunting a physical cache, especially a micro. Virtual caches also have different guidelines they need to follow to be listed on geocaching.com . The fact that you had a physical cache at the location usually means a virtual cache at the location will not meet the guidelines to be listed here.

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

Personal slave of The Frog.

You're quite right. I just wasn't thinking about it from the cache seekers perspective.

Cheers, biltal.

The bull doesn't always lose.

Two virtual gliches...

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

Join the conversation