Jump to content

Virtual Rules Too Strict


Recommended Posts

I know this is a very touchy subject, but I've been caching since before there was a geocaching.com (see Missouri's First cache GC37) and I feel like I understand the sport/game as well as anyone. Mary and I have placed a lot of virtual caches before the new rules and not had any complaints from them. In fact we've had many, many happy cache hunters find our virtuals. Now we can't get one approved. By the new rules none of our virtuals would have been approved.

 

We have just completed three days of cache hunting in Manhattan, and Junction City, Kansas. Most of what we found was virual caches that came about under the old rules. We took 202 pictures and shared them with many people at work today. We told everybody, "This is what caching is all about". Flowers, plants, trails, history, turkeys, deer, beautiful views and on and on. It was an absolute wonderful weekend made possible mostly with old time virual caches.

 

We are very disappointed that we no longer can decide what makes a great virtual cache. Someone who has never been there or saw what we saw, experienced what we experienced now makes the decision of what's good and bad about virtual caches. It's very disappointing that we have no control any more over what we want to make a virtual cache. It's just too strict. Why not let the cachers decide what they want to hunt or not hunt. It they don't want to hunt virtuals, then don't hunt them.

 

It really seems like my latest attempt to get a virtual approved (GCGZWP) meets with the rules. Why do you have to hike to make it a virtual? Why do I have to put a micro container? I provided a way for the finder to validate their find with me. I don't want to make it a multi-cache. I want it to be a simple virtual. It has great historical aspects. “Certificate of Accomplishment” has nothing to do with my validation of the cache. That's just an added plus if the hunter wants it.

 

The rules are not a win-win situation for the hider or finder.

 

I'm sorry for going on and on. Please forgive me. I'm just hurting over these rules.

Link to comment

The heart of geocaching is placing and finding a container. The original caches were full of supplies for hunters, hiker, or whatnot. Since this is a game, our caches have toys, hiking stuff, or whatever. Virtual caches were conceived to allow us to play the game in places where caches could not be placed. National Parks are one example.

Virtual caches were eventually restricted because everyone seemed to be waypointing every side-road historical marker. Virtuals now need to be 'worthy' of being in a coffee-table type book. The restriction is an attempt to return geocaching to its roots. Even though the sport is only 3 years old, it has deviated a lot in that time (locationless, for example).

I have no problems with pointing out interesting locations, but the kids enjoy the hide and seek aspect of finding a container.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

nm_button.gifmystats.php?userid=Team%20GPSaxophone&vopt=&txtdata=&bgcol=FFFFFF&fgcol=000000

bandbass.gif

Link to comment

I am not particularly against virtuals, but in view of the fact that they are so vehemently discouraged by the admin, I think its time that they should simply be banned altogether. The way they are handled now is so arbitrary that it does nothing but create a lot of ill will. I had considered in the past to try to get a virtual approved, but for the last 6 months at least I have had no desire to even begin to get into the hassle of trying.

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. geol4.JPG

Link to comment

I recently had a virtual denied in a Nat'l Park, where traditional caches are not allowed.

Although I'm quite disappointed, I have to accept it.

 

I keep hoping that virts will get their own find count like benchmarks - then maybe the rules could relax a little? Probably not, then there'd still be complaints of virts and trads too close together or something.....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

The heart of geocaching is placing and finding a container. ......<snip>.... The restriction is an attempt to return geocaching to its roots......<snip>


 

In that vein, they should get rid of benchmarking as well. And all the locationless, travelling, and event caches, and so on.....

 

Personally, I started with virtuals as training for physical caches.

Also, virtuals took me to places where caches would not be practical or allowed. I really got to see a lot of stuff, and learned a lot about my new home state. I've seen things in my one year here that people that live here all their lives have never seen.

 

If non-physical caches have to be separate from physical caches:

Maybe virtuals and benchmarks and the rest should be spun off to other web sites?

Maybe they should have their own numbering schemes (benchmarks already do)?

 

DustyJacket

Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case... icon_biggrin.gif

Link to comment

I'm not impressed with the waypoint place. I like this website's support of virtuals as is.

 

I guess if all the virts I'd found were just those memorial/marker signs on the side of the road, I might be bitter too.

 

Nearly all the virts I've found were far better than most traditional caches, including my own. I guess we're blessed around here icon_smile.gif

 

I'd be extremely disappointed if they were banned outright.

Link to comment

Virtuals can be approved if they are unique items in the world. I don't see that this is overly unique myself. It is just another granite marker just like the millions of other granite markers...

 

95225_200.jpg

 

Also, I found the answer to your question on your cache in one 10 second search on the internet.

 

"In order to validate your visit to this site, please furnish the Original name for the Elm Grove Campground per the plaque at the site."

 

That one is pretty easy.

 

There are traditional caches near there to boot, and there is an archived cache that was located in the campground area. The archived cache even has the answer to your question in the description.

 

Since your profile says that you live in KC, well, can't you just place a traditional cache at this location?

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason 19490_2600.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Virtuals can be approved if they are unique items in the world. I don't see that this is overly unique myself. It is just another granite marker just like the millions of other granite markers...


 

This is the type of arbitrariness that I was talking about. The approval process is, of course necessary, but it should only be to ensure that the cache meets basic, consistent guidelines. Geocaching should not be like an Essay contest, where contestants vie for the positive judgement of the adjudicators. I think Geocaching.com should either allow virtuals, or not. Right now, it is somewhere in between - and nobody seems to know precisely where.

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. geol4.JPG

Link to comment

I think Virtuals should only be allowed where a real cache can’t be placed. If you can't place one right at the marker, use one of the numbers on the plaque or marker to give the coordinates to an area nearby that you can hide a cache. That way, people still see the marker that you deem so important or interesting, but that would require you to maintain it, which is why I am for the strict requirements for a virtual.

 

If you take away the current restrictions on virtuals, I think you would have so many crappy virtuals (since any lazy cacher could make them), that the really good ones would be lost in the pile.

 

I also think you put an approver in a hard place when you submit a virtual without even considering the alternatives, (like a real cache), by making them repeat the guidelines for virtuals to you, when you should already know. This particular cache may not apply, I don't have enough details. But if I was submitting a virtual, there would be a paragraph on the form explaining why a real cache can't be placed on the site, or nearby.

 

___________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

The approval process is, of course necessary, but it should only be to ensure that the cache meets basic, consistent guidelines.


Your right, and the one that listed in the first post does not meet those basic, consistent guidelines. The virtual's answer is easily found on the internet and a traditional cache can be placed nearby (and in fact has).

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason 19490_2600.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by martmann:

I think Virtuals should only be allowed where a real cache can’t be placed. If you can't place one right at the marker, use one of the numbers on the plaque or marker to give the coordinates to an area nearby that you can hide a cache.


 

Can you cite a single example where this would not be possible? By following your suggestion, virtuals should simply be eliminated (as I have suggested).

 

quote:
If you take away the current restrictions on virtuals, I think you would have so many crappy virtuals (since any lazy cacher could make them), that the really good ones would be lost in the pile.

 

You have hit the nail on the head. This is the real reason why virtuals are despised by the admin, and why they should be banned. At the very least, the guidelines should honestly be changed to: "Submit it, and if by rare chance we really really like it, then we will approve it, otherwise don't waste your time."

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. geol4.JPG

Link to comment

All I can say is I like virtuals and the rules have changed way to much. When a artist creates a painting he sees something, and you might see something else. But its still there in its own unique perception. But with the new rules hegemony is quite prevalent, and your artistic views are stifled.

How many of these Santa Fe Markers are there any body know the answer.

331918_300.jpg

 

Tahosa - Dweller of Mountain Tops.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Tahosa and Sons:

When a artist creates a painting he sees something, and you might see something else. But its still there in its own unique perception.


 

And if an artist is not allowed to create his own painting, you may as well just confiscate his brushes.

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. geol4.JPG

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

quote:
Originally posted by martmann:

I think Virtuals should only be allowed where a real cache can’t be placed. If you can't place one right at the marker, use one of the numbers on the plaque or marker to give the coordinates to an area nearby that you can hide a cache.


 

quote:
Can you cite a single example where this would not be possible? By following your suggestion, virtuals should simply be eliminated (as I have suggested).

 

A National park, or other area that restricts real caches, but no, I don't have a specific example, (Did say nearby, so miles away isn't something I would think reasonable).

 

quote:
If you take away the current restrictions on virtuals, I think you would have so many crappy virtuals (since any lazy cacher could make them), that the really good ones would be lost in the pile.

 

You have hit the nail on the head. This is the real reason why virtuals are despised by the admin, and why they should be banned. At the very least, the guidelines should honestly be changed to: "Submit it, and if by rare chance we really really like it, then we will approve it, otherwise don't waste your time."


 

I'd be ok with that, as I see no way to make every approver have the same judgment, and there are so many more judgment calls required for virtuals.

 

It looks as though this particular cache could have easily had a real one placed very near by the chosen location (and, in fact, does). It seems like (and I'm going on only vague memories here), any time a forum thread whining about a virtual not being approved, gets to the 'why can't you place a real cache there' question, you never here the hider give a good reason.

 

If it's such a great place (worthy of making a virtual), put a real cache there (worthy of maintaining).

 

I do think virtuals are a different game/sport/whatever.

 

___________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

Can you cite a single example where this would not be possible? By following your suggestion, virtuals should simply be eliminated (as I have suggested).


Yes I can.

 

So We Will Remember Them

 

If you don't think this is worthy of a virtual cache then dig down to Harrald's log on July 2. Sometimes the cache is not just about the smiley face you get for the visit.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason 19490_2600.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

If you don't think this is worthy of a virtual cache then dig down to Harrald's log on July


 

Well I guess this is one of the rare "really really" good virtual caches that was judged worthy of approval, thus meeting the "honest" guidelines that I suggested.

 

Is it fair to say that only caches judged to be of similar calibur in locations where physical caches are not legally allowed, will be approved?

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. geol4.JPG

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

If you don't think this is worthy of a virtual cache then dig down to Harrald's log on July


 

Well I guess this is one of the rare "really really" good virtual caches that was judged worthy of approval, thus meeting the "honest" guidelines that I suggested.

 

Is it fair to say that only caches judged to be of similar calibur in locations where physical caches are not legally allowed, will be approved?


I think that's exactly what the requirements should be for a virtual.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness bandbass.gif

nm_button.gifmystats.php?userid=Team%20GPSaxophone&vopt=&txtdata=&bgcol=FFFFFF&fgcol=000000

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

If you don't think this is worthy of a virtual cache then dig down to Harrald's log on July


 

Well I guess this is one of the rare "really really" good virtual caches that was judged worthy of approval, thus meeting the "honest" guidelines that I suggested.

 

Is it fair to say that only caches judged to be of similar calibur in locations where physical caches are not legally allowed, will be approved?


I think that's exactly what the requirements should be for a virtual.


Yes. And yes they are approved and are not banned.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason 19490_2600.gif

Link to comment

I have a couple of concerns about the current policy with regard to virtuals, some of which do mirror Steve & Mary's.

 

First of all, the wording of the policy still hasn't changed all that much on the "Hide and seek a cache" page. If you don't hang around the forums, you might not have got the message that the rules are tighter than they were before.

 

This creates its own problems. For instance, if you design a virtual, and really spend some time getting it just right, how infuriating is it going to be to be told it's not allowed?

 

The second problem is that the rules, written and unwritten, don't take account of the setter's judgement. Sometimes the appropriate type of cache for an area is, quite frankly, a virtual. Not a traditional, not a micro, not an offset.

 

I have two virtual caches, each with 100% positive logs in them. In each case, the goal is a physical object, but one that I could not own or trade. I chose to make them the objects of virtuals because they were worth seeing for their own sake. Each provoked a strong reaction (horror in one case, laughter in the other). Leading the cacher off to some box of goodies after seeing them would be an anticlimax, and totally pointless.

 

And no, they're not appropriate for waypointing. That site doesn't allow the kind of postings and management that were appropriate for the caches.

 

My third problem with the policy is that it doesn't actually improve quality. My first virtual, which was also my first cache placement, took a good 40 hours' work to research, calculate, arrange, and playtest. (A side note - how frustrating would it have been to have my cache rejected then?)

 

I had sought relatively few caches at the time, and was clearly naive. With more experience, I know now that I should just get a box and some goodies and spend an hour or two stuffing it in some hiding place in the woods, instead of doing all that quality research and writing. Silly me.

 

My perception of the rules on virts is that they have come about because of a set of people, very active on the forums, who dislike them for being "impure" to the spirit of caching. Being vocal enough, they've convinced the admins that they represent a rump of opinion.

 

If virts go (as they seem to be), then I bet micros will be in the crosshairs within a few months. Eventually we'll all be hunting identical boxes in identical spots in the woods, each with a set number of items of set quality inside.

 

Or rather, you will. I'll probably have got bored and left.

 

evilrooster

http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

 

[This message was edited by evilrooster on October 08, 2003 at 01:50 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
My first virtual, which was also my first cache placement, took a good 40 hours' work to research, calculate, arrange, and playtest. (A side note - how frustrating would it have been to have my cache rejected then?)

 

Run your idea past your local admin before going through the trouble. This should be done with any cache that you think might be stretching the rules a bit.

 

quote:
My perception of the rules on virts is that they have come about because of a set of people, very active on the forums, who dislike them for being "impure" to the spirit of caching. Being vocal enough, they've convinced the admins that they represent a rump of opinion.

 

No, the change came from the top, down. There was no groudswell of opinion in the forums against virtuals. I don't even recall a vocal minority coming out against them. In fact, the admins have taken a lot of heat because of their crackdown on virts. But I understand their reasons for doing so. People were making virtuals of every roadside marker in existence, no matter how banal and also things like fence posts, rotting animal carcasses and an abandoned sneaker in the woods (tell me what brand to log a find).

 

Another reason was when negotiating with land managers to get them to allow geocaches in their parks, they would often point to virtuals as an acceptable alternative, making it difficult to get real caches approved in many places.

 

And finally, as GPSax said, they cracked down in order to bring the sport back to its roots, which is finding caches and not being just another waypoint.org.

 

A virtual should be something that makes you say "wow!". Not something that makes you say "yeah, so what". There were far too many of the latter. The current guidelines are reasonable and welcome (at least to me).

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on October 08, 2003 at 02:56 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by evilrooster:

My perception of the rules on virts is that they have come about because of a set of people, very active on the forums, who dislike them for being "impure" to the spirit of caching. Being vocal enough, they've convinced the admins that they represent a rump of opinion.


 

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

People were making virtuals of every roadside marker in existence, no matter how banal and also things like fence posts, rotting animal carcasses and an abandoned sneaker in the woods (tell me what brand to log a find).

...

And finally, as GPSax said, they cracked down in order to bring the sport back to its roots, which is finding _caches_ and not being just another waypoint.org.

 

A virtual should be something that makes you say "wow!". Not something that makes you say "yeah, so what". There were far too many of the latter. The current guidelines are reasonable and welcome (at least to me).


 

BrianSnat you are the living proof to evilrooster's claim. icon_smile.gif

 

Cornix

Link to comment

quote:
BrianSnat you are the living proof to evilrooster's claim.

 

Huh? I never spoke out against virtuals. I've found a couple that I enjoyed and a lot more that were a complete waste of time, but never posted one way or another in the forums.

 

Since the crackdown however, I have posted in support of GC.COM's new guidelines.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

I agree with Seneca. I think it's all come down to what one feels as a special place or not. When you get 2 people together and have them describe what they think about something, then you are going to get 2 different answers. I think that virtuals should meet certain requirements. But I do not agree that an approver should make the decision based on their thoughts. The one you mentioned mtn-man was the Vietnam Veterans wall? To some this may be a "wow", to others no it's not. Is it a "wow" in my book? No not really. I've seen it years ago. I've seen the moving one. I don't have any relatives or know of anyone that died in the Vietnam war. Do I not have sympathy? Yes of course I do. But to me, the wall does not have that "wow". There are many more veteran memorials across the country. Would they be allowed for virtuals? If so, I will be placing some soon. Or do they all become another piece of stone? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone will get something different from a cache experience whether its a virtual or traditional. I say either do away with them all or let them stay and put them with benchmarks and get rid of the requirement of an approver thinking if it's worthy or not.

 

I do agree that yes the answer should not be found easily. Perhaps the originator of this thread can come up with a better question to ask that the answer can't be easily found.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

mystats.php?userid=Woodsters%20Outdoors&vopt=&txtdata=Stats%20Rule!&bgcol=FFFFFF&fgcol=000000

Link to comment

evilrooster, you come across as somewhat negative in your post above. However I'd like you to know that I've always had this great cache of yours bookmarked. I have sent that link to countless people as an example of a virtual cache I would not hesitate to post. Just reading it gives me a thrill, and I hope one day to log it.

 

However it's the routine drive-by roadside markers and enumerable graves of another locally famous person that caused the backlash against virts. If all were of the caliber of yours we wouldn't have this issue.

 

However, if in doubt just run your idea by a cache approver before investing huge amounts of time constructing a virtual cache.

 

erik - geocaching.com admin

Link to comment

I didn't see evilroosters post as all that negative. He is correct though. I agree with everything he said 100%. Someone posted a log on my first cache I placed and they stated it was "a random spot, in some random woods, on some random hill". Ok that sums up 99% of the caches I have found. Everyone else that visities it gave all positive comments. It's a cache not hidden i na typical hiding place. Matter of fact the person who posted the comment in which I quoted stated they had a hard time finding it. Many didn't realize the park it is in was even there nor the pond you walk by to get to the cache, or the swingsets where children can play. Most of the people from what i have read, didn't even know there was a trail until after they made it to the top of a good size steep hill. Many people may not have known about this area, but do now because of caching. I feel the same about the virtuals. If they are lame, then they are lame. I can get a feel from the other previous finders online logs. It's still something to go after and seek. How many of us do the 1/1 caches that are driveby? WE don't complain about those. They all have their own place, their own meaning and their own set of finders. To each their own. I know one thing, I've learned a lot about the area in which I live in now in the last few months, thanks to geocaching. I've found backroads and shortcuts to get around. I would of never known if it weren't for those caches. I feel the same about virtuals. Sometimes they introduce us to things we would never see otherwise. I've done one virtual. Basically because that was the nearest one to me and the others are a distance away. It is no longer a virtual and was turned into something else due to controversy and then finally the owner archived it. But that's another story. I think opinions should stay out of the decision making of approving something. Everyone has a different opinion.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

mystats.php?userid=Woodsters%20Outdoors&vopt=&txtdata=Stats%20Rule!&bgcol=FFFFFF&fgcol=000000

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:

evilrooster, you come across as somewhat negative in your post above.


 

Wasn't intending to be negative. It's more that as a fan of virtuals, I feel sidelined, ignored, and occasionally persecuted. (Well, I would if I took the forums personally...)

 

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:

However I'd like you to know that I've always had this cache of yours bookmarked. I have sent that link to countless people as an example of a virtual cache I would not hesitate to post. Just reading it gives me a thrill, and I hope one day to log it.


 

I appreciated your comments to me when I posted it - they made me feel very welcome as a first time cache setter. I have met at least one of the cachers that you sent the link to, when she was in town. If you ever find yourself in Edinburgh, please do get in touch as well as doing the cache.

 

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

A virtual should be something that makes you say "wow!". Not something that makes you say "yeah, so what".


quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:

However it's the routine drive-by roadside markers and enumerable graves of another locally famous person that caused the backlash against virts. If all were of the caliber of yours we wouldn't have this issue.


 

I guess my main point in my post is that a traditional cache should make you say "wow!" too. I've seen so many routine hike-by Tupperware and ammo boxes on the cache listings. If I tarred all of them with the same brush the way virts seem to have been tarred, where would we be?

 

BTW, I wasn't actually thinking of BrianSnat, or anyone else, when I referred to a vocal minority on the forums. I'm a pretty visual person, and the way that everyone keeps changing their avatars means that unless someone has been notable enough for me to note their userID, I can't keep track of who's who. But there has been a theme of "virtuals are bad, we hate them" in the forums for most of the time I've been in geocaching.

 

Some of it seems to be from that set of people that you find in every community, who want rules for everything. It's a natural, and in many cases, necessary trend, but it can stifle innovation and fun.

 

evilrooster

http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

I understand their reasons for doing so. People were making virtuals of every roadside marker in existence, no matter how banal and also things like fence posts, rotting animal carcasses and an abandoned sneaker in the woods (tell me what brand to log a find).

 

Another reason was when negotiating with land managers to get them to allow geocaches in their parks, they would often point to virtuals as an acceptable alternative, making it difficult to get real caches approved in many places.


 

Virts also started crossing over to temporary waypointing.

A couple of approvers pointed out, in some older threads, that they were getting flooded with temporary virtual holiday caches. Hundreds of virtuals a week for halloween, Christmas and Easter decorations. Many saying they would archive them after the season.

 

One of the counter arguments against placing a physical cache for Halloween decorations, was "why would anyone want to cache on our front porch after Halloween." Sounds like a good reason to deny the cache.

 

39197_3500.jpgPOWDER!!!!!!

19490_2600.gifHonored to provide inmate labor for Admin brick manufacture since 2002.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

I think opinions should stay out of the decision making of approving something. Everyone has a different opinion.


I think you absolutely have to have opinions to approve virtual caches. It is far from black and white. My Vietnam Wall cache is the original memorial. My cache was created before the change in guidelines, but the fact that it was the first makes it unique above the copies that have come out since. There is a small Vietnam Memorial near Atlanta but to me it was not a virtual cache target. I placed a micro cache less than 100 feet away. No problem. It is a busy park and the cache is almost out in the open. People still see the special site and the traditional cache sticks to the current guidelines.

 

Without opinion this is just black and white. I don't ever want geocaching to be just black and white myself. Without opinions there would be NO virtual caches. I like virtual caches and my find breakdown reflects that. I'm sure there are a few brass plaques riveted to concrete or slabs of engraved granite out there that could indeed be virtual caches. They are few and far between though. You might even say that they are "unique".

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason 19490_2600.gif

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

19490_2900.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Without opinion this is just black and white. I don't ever want geocaching to be just black and white myself. Without opinions there would be NO virtual caches.


 

Physical caches are approved all the time without subjective opinion being involved in any part of the approval process. There are clear objective guidelines to follow. That's how I like it. The day the rules change such that my cache submission will be judged in a subjective manner prior to being approved, will be the day I stop hiding caches.

 

There are many caches out there that we all have some subjective problem with - but no one is suggesting they not be allowed.

 

If this site is going to continue to entertain virtual cache submissions, while taking the position that they cannot be approved without subjective judgment being involved, then I think that a much more comprehensive and fair judgment process is required, in order to eliminate the ill will constantly created by the current process. In my opinion, I don't think its worth it.

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. geol4.JPG

Link to comment

quote:
A virtual should be something that makes you say "wow!". Not something that makes you say "yeah, so what".
The "wow" is in the mind of the beholder. I don't expect that everybody would care about the Santa Fe Trail, but obviously enough people did to plant the marker.

 

It'd be better with a ratings system, but that applies to traditional caches. I've only done one virt, but I liked it better than at least several soggy trashbag traditionals I've done.

 

____________________________

- Team Og Rof A Klaw

All who wander are not lost.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MountainMudbug:

quote:
Originally posted by MountainMudbug:

BTW does the same distance rule apply for virtuals as it does for traditionals?

 

And do traditional-cache-restricted (no placement allowed) areas get 'special' consideration for approval of virtuals?


 

Still wondering?


Yes to both questions MMB.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason 19490_2600.gif

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

19490_2900.jpg

Link to comment

Seneca, I guess the reason there is not the subjectivity about phyisical caches is because that is exactly what this site is all about. Either the area is approved or not. It is almost black and white but not always.

 

The percentages of cachers that get upset are extremely small. A lot of them just go ahead and do a multi or a micro or move on. They are very nice about it and they are treat to work with. Unfortunately each time a topic is posted here by one of the people that gets upset the same issues get rehashed over and over and the same discussion is revived and perpetuated generally by the same few people. Evidence of that is seen by some of the people posting on this topic discussing both side of the issue. GC.com does not stop this discussion though, so here we go again. If every one of the people that just moved on or converted their virtual posted here that might be great, but obviously it is not needed. Please just understand that the percentage that I see is small. I think that only one or two that I have dealt with of the hundreds that I have archived have posted here.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason 19490_2600.gif

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

19490_2900.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Without opinion this is just black and white. I don't ever want geocaching to be just black and white myself. Without opinions there would be NO virtual caches.


 

Physical caches are approved all the time without subjective opinion being involved in any part of the approval process. There are clear objective guidelines to follow. That's how I like it.


 

I'm afraid I take the complete opposite view, seneca.

 

My perception - and I await correction - is that the move against virtuals is due to a feeling that they are of lower quality on average than the physical ones. Therefore, the resources they take (0.1 mile radius exclusion zones, server space, approver time) might be "better used" on the physical caches. Look at the examples that have been cited so far: drive-by plaques, Christmas displays, and the like.

 

This is also why I suspect micros will be next on the hit list - I've already run across threads where people have said that they dislike them because they're generally "worse" than traditional caches, and can there please be a filter for them?

 

But the cache density in the busiest areas is going to keep on growing, as will the number of cachers. Eventually the "really good" places will be blocked, even if you don't factor in virtuals. So, inevitably, at some point we're either going to have to stop hiding, or start weeding out the lower quality physical caches. Somehow.

 

Adding a judgemental element to virtual approval is easy - particularly with the new "approver information" field, which can be used to give the cache approver an idea of what the cache is about. Adding a judgemental element to physical cache approvals would be harder, of course, but I suspect in time it will in time be necessary. Why not start thinking about it now, and treat both (all) types as subject to approval?

 

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

The day the rules change such that my cache submission will be judged in a subjective manner prior to being approved, will be the day I stop hiding caches.


 

That was my first impulse as a virtual setter. But my opinion has changed to what I have just stated. I think we need to "raise the bar" on all caches eventually. I mostly object to the fact that virts are being targeted first and treated as "guilty till proven innocent."

 

The example that comes to mind, as cited in the UK forum at one point, was of a hider who set a virt at a motorway lay-by, demanding the number of the rubbish bin in that lay-by. It was quite properly rejected, even under the old regime. Fine. But if he'd hidden a film canister at that same lay-by, it would have been accepted. How is that superior?

 

evilrooster

http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Unfortunately each time a topic is posted here by one of the people that gets upset the same issues get rehashed over and over and the same discussion is revived and perpetuated generally by the same few people. Evidence of that is seen by some of the people posting on this topic discussing both side of the issue. GC.com does not stop this discussion though, so here we go again. If every one of the people that just moved on or converted their virtual posted here that might be great, but obviously it is not needed. Please just understand that the percentage that I see is small. I think that only one or two that I have dealt with of the hundreds that I have archived have posted here.


 

For the record, this is the third time I have ever posted to a discussion such as this, and the first time I have posted in depth. Nor have I had a virtual rejected, perhaps because I haven't been inspired to set one lately (it has to be a really good idea before I'll do the work). I simply feel that the move against virtuals has a few problems (such as lack of publicity outwith the forums). I also am concerned that it will not solve some of the longer-term challenges that geocaching faces (like low-quality traditional caches).

 

I am sorry you feel this has been hashed to death, mtn-man, but implying that anyone who has a different view on virtuals has a case of sour grapes is not the way to convince the unconvinced. As a member of the geocaching community, I have a number of concerns that I think are worth airing and considering. I thought that's what discussion forums were for?

 

evilrooster

http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

Link to comment

quote:
My perception - and I await correction - is that the move against virtuals is due to a feeling that they are of lower quality on average than the physical ones.

 

That's not true. There are some great virtuals out there. Here is an excellent one. One of the geocachers I found it with had never logged a virtual before and hasn't since, but he loved this hunt. A good cache is a good cache, virtual, or not.

 

I stated my take on the reasons for the move against virutals in my earlier post (and I didn't make the stuff up. I've heard it from several approvers), so yes, you've been corrected.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:I stated my take on the reasons for the move against virutals in my earlier post (and I didn't make the stuff up. I've heard it from several approvers), so yes, you've been corrected.


 

These ones, I presume.

 

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

People were making virtuals of every roadside marker in existence, no matter how banal and also things like fence posts, rotting animal carcasses and an abandoned sneaker in the woods (tell me what brand to log a find).


 

Quality issue.

 

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

Another reason was when negotiating with land managers to get them to allow geocaches in their parks, they would often point to virtuals as an acceptable alternative, making it difficult to get real caches approved in many places.


 

Not directly a quality issue. However, why object unless you view traditionals as better quality than virtuals, in which case the offer to let us set virts becomes a second-class offer?

 

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

And finally, as GPSax said, they cracked down in order to bring the sport back to its roots, which is finding _caches_ and not being just another waypoint.org.


 

Why return the sport to its roots unless you feel it's gone astray? Arguably another quality issue.

 

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

A virtual should be something that makes you say "wow!". Not something that makes you say "yeah, so what". There were far too many of the latter.


 

Quality issue.

 

I make it 50% definitely due to a feeling that virts were low quality, and 50% that traditionals are better than virtuals, possibly because of the same reason. Otherwise aren't we back to the old "if you don't like them don't hunt for them" meme?

 

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

quote:
My perception - and I await correction - is that the move against virtuals is due to a feeling that they are of lower quality on average than the physical ones.

 

That's not true. There are some great virtuals out there. Here is an excellent one One of the geocachers I found it with had never logged a virtual before and hasn't since, but he loved this hunt. A good cache is a good cache, virtual, or not.


 

That is my point. Are we going to start violently agreeing with one another?

 

I think we've done this to death; posts are getting heated. I hope that some of my concerns, particularly about publicising the more literal interpretation of the virtual guidelines outwith the forums, will be addressed, and that virts won't be killed off altogether. But I'm just one cacher; clearly my voice only counts for so much.

 

evilrooster

http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by evilrooster:

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Unfortunately each time a topic is posted here by one of the people that gets upset the same issues get rehashed over and over and the same discussion is revived and perpetuated generally by the same few people. Evidence of that is seen by some of the people posting on this topic discussing both side of the issue. GC.com does not stop this discussion though, so here we go again. If every one of the people that just moved on or converted their virtual posted here that might be great, but obviously it is not needed. Please just understand that the percentage that I see is small. I think that only one or two that I have dealt with of the hundreds that I have archived have posted here.


 

I am sorry you feel this has been hashed to death, mtn-man, but implying that anyone who has a different view on virtuals has a case of sour grapes is not the way to convince the unconvinced. As a member of the geocaching community, I have a number of concerns that I think are worth airing and considering. I thought that's what discussion forums were for?


It would help if you read my post. I never said the issue has been "hashed to death", but rather said what is in bold above which is different. If I would have meant "hashed to death" I would have said that specifically. I even said that GC.com does not stop this type of discussion. Nor did I say or imply that "anyone who has a different view on virtuals has a case of sour grapes". In fact, what I said about most of the people who have their virtual caches turned down is:

quote:
If every one of the people that just moved on or converted their virtual posted here that might be great, but obviously it is not needed. Please just understand that the percentage that I see is small. I think that only one or two that I have dealt with of the hundreds that I have archived have posted here.
Like I said, only one or two of the hundreds of virtual caches that I have archived have been brought up in the forums. I'm sure those cachers have a different view of virtuals but obviously don't have a case of "sour grapes". I totally agree and support the fact that people can express their views and concern in these forums. That is exactly what they are for and I don't consider that "sour grapes".

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason 19490_2600.gif

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

19490_2900.jpg

Link to comment

I think the reason that traditionals are approved over virtuals is that a "virtual cache" is not really a cache. Cache is defined as:

 

1) A hiding place used especially for storing

provisions.

 

2)A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables.

 

3)A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place.

 

Nothing is "hidden, stored, or concealed for safekeeping" when it comes to a virtual. Am I calling for the end to virtuals? No. I just think they should be placed when a traditional cache cannot be placed, as stated numerous times before. If you have a place of interest that you want people to see or visit, can they not appreciate it if there is a traditional cache nearby? Why not lead them to the spot with the traditional cache, and make sure to note on the cache page the things you want them to appreciate/notice/stand in awe of? There can't be that many places that require a virtual to be placed over a traditional, and with a traditional, you can have the experience of a virtual, and swap McToys

 

"I'm 35 Years old, I am divorced, and I live in van down by the river!" - Matt Foley

Link to comment

Since I had surgery on my foot and can't walk around, my hubby and I started doing the virtual caches so I can ride in the truck and do very limited walking. If there weren't any vertuals we would not be able to cache at all for months. I wish there were more near my home to go see. I hope they stay. icon_smile.gif

 

We used to be directionally challenged, now we have a GPS, and are high-tech directionally challenged. At least now we know where we are when we are lost.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

I'm all in favor of separating virtuals from regular caches. The site already exists! It's called http://www.waypoint.org and is set up to mark waypoints for interesting places, no containers, logbooks, or stats involved. Virtuals should be eliminated from Geocaching.com altogether.


If you dispise them so much why do you have 19 of them logged with the last one just a week ago???

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

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

Link to comment

Lots of good conversation happening here, just haven't seen this situation addressed (maybe I overlooked it):

 

I submitted a virt in a Nat'l Park - it was a hike of 2.2 miles one-way with 1,300 ft elevation gain, to a large cave-like formation. One of the most beautiful hikes I've done, anywhere. No leaving the trail required, no bushwhacking.

 

There are a couple other virts within a few miles of this one; accessible via the same trail if you kept hiking up the mountain several more miles. You have to hike over 4 miles one-way to get to those.

 

I was making this one as a mid-range hike, still tough but with a great virt reward. I was requesting a pic of finder/GPS at the cave, and some info off a wooden trail sign nearby (I searched the internet, I couldn't find the answer there)

 

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here icon_eek.gif, Just trying to determine others' opinions of a situation like this.

I'm a Nat'l Park junkie, that's why my knickers are in a knot over this, I guess icon_wink.gif

Are we steering away from NP virts in general, ?

 

I understand the definition of cache and why virts don't really fit. However, I've been playing the game this way for a year, so it stings to see the noose tighten on them when the virts in my area have been a tremendous part of my geocaching enjoyment, and to all the others who've logged them.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SLCDave:

I think the reason that traditionals are approved over virtuals is that a "virtual cache" is not really a cache. Cache is defined as:

 

1) A hiding place used especially for storing

provisions.

 

2)A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables.

 

3)A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place.

 


 

Above in bold is where I have problems with the definitions keep posting on a "cache". I haven't seen anything valuable, provisions, and well goods is about the closest you can get, but that is not the correct term either in my opinion.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

mystats.php?userid=Woodsters%20Outdoors&vopt=&txtdata=Stats%20Rule!&bgcol=FFFFFF&fgcol=000000

Link to comment

quote:
Lots of good conversation happening here, just haven't seen this situation addressed (maybe I overlooked it):

 

I submitted a virt in a Nat'l Park - it was a hike of 2.2 miles one-way with 1,300 ft elevation gain, to a large cave-like formation. One of the most beautiful hikes I've done, anywhere. No leaving the trail required, no bushwhacking.

 

There are a couple other virts within a few miles of this one; accessible via the same trail if you kept hiking up the mountain several more miles. You have to hike over 4 miles one-way to get to those.

 

I was making this one as a mid-range hike, still tough but with a great virt reward. I was requesting a pic of finder/GPS at the cave, and some info off a wooden trail sign nearby (I searched the internet, I couldn't find the answer there)

 

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here , Just trying to determine others' opinions of a situation like this.

I'm a Nat'l Park junkie, that's why my knickers are in a knot over this, I guess

Are we steering away from NP virts in general, ?

 


 

MB, this sounds like a cache that should have been approved. It is in a national park, so a real cache isn't allowed. What was the admin's reasoning? My guess is that there was no way to verify the find.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by evilrooster:

...The example that comes to mind, as cited in the UK forum at one point, was of a hider who set a virt at a motorway lay-by, demanding the number of the rubbish bin in that lay-by. It was quite properly rejected, even under the old regime. Fine. But if he'd hidden a film canister at that same lay-by, it would have been accepted. How is that superior?


 

I think the fact that a physical cache requires maintenance, throttles back the amount of crap micros, (to an extent). If no maintenance is done when it is (inevitably) required, it will get archived.

 

But when some lazy cache hider submits the lame Virtual, for the same area, that's about all the work they have to do, encouraging their laziness, and their penchant for submitting lame virtuals, that may never be archived.

 

___________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

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...
×
×
  • Create New...