Jump to content

Virtual Rules Too Strict


Recommended Posts

Virtuals could be archived if they are not handled as intended. Finder emails owner answer to prove find. Owner gives go ahead. Many don't bother to email. My opinion is that those are lame caches. Doesn't matter how great or touching the cache is. If the owner is not going to play up with the maintaining a virtual, then they don't need to own it. Archive those.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

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

Link to comment

A virtual cache submission in a National Park or other place where physical caches are prohibited will be given an "easier time" on one aspect of the test for a virtual cache -- that is, whether a traditional cache can be placed at or near the location, or whether the location can be used as a waypoint in a multicache that ends with a traditional cache outside the restricted area. In a National Park, the "can't place a physical cache" test is easier to pass.

 

BUT... that still leaves the other elements of the test for approving a virtual. The subject of the virtual cache must be an identifiable specific object that is unique/unusual/interesting. A nice view or a nice hike or a snow-covered mountain is not a proper subject for a virtual cache, in and of itself. You don't need a GPS to find a mountain or a lake or a trail. An approveable virtual cache, inside or outside a national park, needs to take the visitor to a specific point or points of compelling interest.

 

When I do receive submissions that meet this test, I approve them with pleasure. I also enjoy finding them.

 

124791_700.jpg Don't make me stop this car!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Keystone Approver:

... needs to take the visitor to a specific point or points of compelling interest.

 

When I do receive submissions that meet this test, I approve them with pleasure. I also enjoy finding them.


 

I'm interested in knowing how you know what is of "compelling interest" to me. Or do you even take that into consideration? An old DC-3 permanently parked at a heritage airpark is of "compelling interest" to me, but I presume that there are many people who could care less about such an exhibit. If you just happen to be one of those people, is it fair to presume that such a virtual cache would not "meet" your test.

 

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

Link to comment

Well for starters, Seneca, there had better be a Vespa involved.

 

Seriously... allow me to quote just a few passages from the extensive discussion of virtuals in the cache hiding guidelines:

quote:
The overall intent for virtual and reverse virtual caches is to focus on the unique as opposed to the commonplace or mundane...

 

A virtual cache must be of a physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent....

 

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail/beach/view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are.

 

A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples.


These are the standards which Groundspeak has asked me to apply when considering a cache submission. In doing so, I try hard to put aside personal preferences and instead do my best to assess the subject's interest to the hypothetical "average geocacher." For example, I am not a big fan of architecture, but many people like to tour historic buildings or those designed by famous architects. But I readily approved this virtual cache, located in a National Recreation Area. Read the logs. "Never would have found this if it hadn't been for geocaching" is the type of comment you'll see in the logs for a good virtual cache. There's a nice hike involved, not pulling over to read a historic sign. The artist's house that is the subject of this cache is one-of-a-kind. I might never visit this cache, but everyone who has done so has enjoyed the experience.

 

124791_700.jpg Don't make me stop this car!

 

[This message was edited by Keystone Approver on October 08, 2003 at 05:28 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Keystone Approver:

... allow me to quote just a few passages from the extensive discussion of virtuals in the cache hiding guidelines:

quote:
....A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples.

 

This standard appears to me to be easier to meet, and require less subjective judgment, than the "compelling interest" test that you said you use when you consider virtuals.

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

quote:

 

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

http://www.woodsters.com

 

http://www.keenpeople.com/stats/

 

I was not pointing out what is stored in a cache, I was giving the dictionary definition of the word cache. It is clearly defined as "a hiding place", "A place of concealment", and a Store of goods.... concealed in a hiding place". Please don't derail my statement and try to make it something it isn't. I don't mean any offense to you, Woodsters, as I'm sure you didn't mean me any.

 

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

Link to comment

No it wasn't on you SLCDave. It was on the definitions that everyone posts. It's not really a cache then if it doesn't have the goods, provisions, or valuables inside.

 

As far as it being something that is hidden, that is another discussion. Many times traditional caches are not hidden. Then when you consider the fact that you go to a traditional cache site with coordinates given to you and find the cache. The same as a virtual, you go to the coordinates and find the answer to the question or follow the instructions to claim your find. Not much difference when you really think about it. Especially when you are talking about caches that are under a 3 in difficulty.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MountainMudbug:

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.


MMB, as I read your description I knew exactly what you were describing. I have been there many times. I have an interesting photo of the location taken from Duck Hawk Ridge directly opposite the location.

 

alumcave.jpg

 

I found your cache page. The archive note is just a standard note and the approver may not have known the area that well. I may well have worked with you to approve the cache if I looked at it. One problem is the sign. Being the "approver of all trades", I not only know the area very well but I also found a picture of the sign on the Internet. I am bad about spoiling that for virtual caches. If you would like I will send you the URL via email in case you are curious.

 

I think in your case you should have emailed the approver. I have most definately been swayed by a good argument for a cache. If you could make it work somehow without the sign, then maybe. The location is very interesting indeed and is one of the highlights of that trail.

 

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 Steve & Mary Brown:

quote:
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.

 

I would love to have that opportunity.

 

Steve Brown


Steve, the problem with your cache is that a traditional cache can and has been placed at that location. That fact negates the virtual cache.

 

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 Woodsters Outdoors:

quote:
Originally posted by Keystone Approver:

"Never would have found this if it hadn't been for geocaching" is the type of comment you'll see in the logs for a good virtual cache.


 

But if the virtual is not approved and not on the cache list, then there's no chance for someone to make such a log.

 

Brian


Pulease. icon_rolleyes.gifback.gif

 

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:

I found your cache page. The archive note is just a standard note and the approver may not have known the area that well. I may well have worked with you to approve the cache if I looked at it. One problem is the sign. Being the "approver of all trades", I not only know the area very well but I also found a picture of the sign on the Internet. I am bad about spoiling that for virtual caches. If you would like I will send you the URL via email in case you are curious.

 

I think in your case you should have emailed the approver. I have most definately been swayed by a good argument for a cache. If you could make it work somehow without the sign, then maybe. The location is very interesting indeed and is one of the highlights of that trail.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason


 

Thank you for looking into this, mtn-man.

 

I did in fact share a couple emails with the approver, who suggested I take it to the waypoint site. I requested some clarification as to why it was not approved and was referred to the new stricter virtual rules in general, and that there were two virts on the same trail.

 

Interesting that you found the sign info on the net, I tried and didnt come up with anything icon_smile.gif I would indeed like to see the url via email.

 

I was frankly not aware of the stricter rules before I tried to submit this virt, otherwise I would have taken more care to note the other special identifying features at the area - like how many steps in the embedded log staircase, how many spikes in the cable handrails, etc.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

quote:
Originally posted by Keystone Approver:

"Never would have found this if it hadn't been for geocaching" is the type of comment you'll see in the logs for a good virtual cache.


 

But if the virtual is not approved and not on the cache list, then there's no chance for someone to make such a log.

 

Brian


Pulease. icon_rolleyes.gifback.gif

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/19490_2600.gif

"approver of all trades" -- http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=4016058331&m=81960519&r=30560429#30560429

http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/19490_2900.jpg


 

I think that is basic logi isn't it? You can't have a log that says "Never would have found this if it hadn't been for geocaching". If there isn't a cache in the first place. So how can you deny a virtual upon the presumptions that you don't think people will have a similar experience as the above statement?

 

I say either allow them like you do regular caches, or get rid of them alltogether and don't impose a a grandfather clause. Delete them all. Do the same thing for the locationless as they are the same thing basically. While your at it, benchmarks are virtuals as well. Sure would save a lot of server space and bandwidth. That way we can have more potential geolitter, pirates, and muggles.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

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

Link to comment

I suppose the "newest twist" to geocaching will be to go hide tiny micro caches near existing virtuals in unrestricted areas, or use the object of the virtual as a stage in a multi-micro cache, in order to eliminate as many virtual caches as possible. Perhaps there can be some kind of prize awarded to whoever eliminates the highest number of virts. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a website devoted to such an activity pops up somewhere before the end of the day. icon_rolleyes.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

I say either allow them like you do regular caches, or get rid of them alltogether and don't impose a a grandfather clause. Delete them all. Do the same thing for the locationless as they are the same thing basically. While your at it, benchmarks are virtuals as well. Sure would save a lot of server space and bandwidth. That way we can have more potential geolitter, pirates, and muggles.

 

Brian


Well, they are allowed just like regular caches. They have guidelines just like regular caches. Since one of your two conditions for virtuals above is satified, does that mean that you will stop this never ending argument of yours? Or do we start splitting hairs again so you can begin to argue once again???

 

I said it once here already but it bears repeating.

quote:
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.
I don't have any problem with someone bringing their cache to the forums for discussion. I clearly showed that a cache can and in fact has been at this exact location. In the first post is was said that "It's very disappointing that we have no control any more over what we want to make a virtual cache." There are places that I am not allowed to hike. I would love to hike there but someone says that I cannot. (See my Duck Hawk Rock web page linked in an earlier post above). Oh well. I can ask them if I can but I just accepted it and moved on. There are tons of additional places to hike just like there are tons of additional places to put a geocache. If I want a tough hike then I have to search harder for it, just like trying to find a great location for a virtual cache.

 

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:

Well, they are allowed just like regular caches. They have guidelines just like regular caches.


 

No they aren't. To get a virtual approved, you have to go through more hoops than you do a regular cache. They may have guidelines, but their guidelines are different than the regualr cache ones. As others have mentioned what Jeremy has stated before and not in the exact words, but just assume it won't get approved.

 

quote:

Since one of your two conditions for virtuals above is satified, does that mean that you will stop this never ending argument of yours? Or do we start splitting hairs again so you can begin to argue once again???


I think it's clear as black and white about my opinion on virtuals are. Either approve them like other caches, put them in their very own place like benchmarks, or get rid of all of them. Whether I agree or disagree, the argument is still going to be brought up by the people here. If my opinion is still the same at the time, then so be it. Work smarter not harder. It's no sweat off my brow.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

I'm not...i just wanted to have a record of what they typed in case they changed it...waiting to see how long that little yellow triangle takes...

 

Doesn't bother what they think...it wasn't called for...but I wanted to try that yellow traingle out anyway...

 

Brian

http://www.woodsters.com

 

http://www.keenpeople.com/stats/

 

Dont worry I have no desire to change it. It's true.

 

Lapaglia icon_cool.gif

Muga Muchu (forget yourself, focus)

cache_new.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Doesn't bother what they think...


I'll agree with your objection on the wording of the statement, but if it doesn't matter what they think then it doesn't matter what you think either.

 

No need to get all upset about it, but the subject is Virtual Rules Too Strict. I don't believe they are. The rules (or guidelines if you prefer) are in place to help reduce the number of poorly planned virtuals. It has already been said that if you have a compelling reason why a traditional cache couldn't be placed there, state your case. Ask first, don't put in a ton of work on a virtual and then ask. If you're going to put in a ton of work, you can figure out some way to incorporate that marker (or whatever your virtual subject is) into a multicache.

 

Should we ban virtuals altogether? I don't think so. While 99% of virtuals could have a cache placed nearby and the virtual used as a part of a multicache, there are some places where virtuals are the only option. National Parks, Washington D.C., etc.

 

Lets talk about this rather than making rude comments and get yet another thread locked.

 

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

I just wanted to say that I like doing virtuals. I would rather do a bad virtual than a bad normal or micro cache. I also like doing reverse caches, they are the closest to the "scavenger hunt" aspect of caching than any other type. The restrictions are too great now but there has to be some so they don't get out of hand. If things didn't evovle where would football be without the forward pass or basketball without the dunk or 3 point shot. They add variety to the game. They probably should have their own section like benchmarks. If you don't like them don't do them.

 

Remember, wherever you go- there you are!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

I think it's clear as black and white about my opinion on virtuals are. Either approve them like other caches, put them in their very own place like benchmarks, or get rid of all of them. Whether I agree or disagree, the argument is still going to be brought up by the people here.


You are spouting a double standard. You say "approve them like other caches", but you don't want them to have any guidelines. All caches have guidelines. If the guidelines on virtuals are relaxed then you will complain that the guidelines are too strict on traditionals (which you already complain about). I guess it fits the pattern of just constantly... well, you know.
quote:
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.
This one has run its course for me. I'm just going to Markwell the many topics regarding this in the future I think. It has all been said over and over.

 

smile.gif I found two more caches today. Time to go log them.

 

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:

You are spouting a double standard. You say "approve them like other caches", but you don't want them to have any guidelines. All caches have guidelines.


Where have I said that virtuals shouldn't have guidelines? I just don't think that there should be a movement against them and single them out and make it tougher on them. I said they should have their own place like benchmarks. I can see the difference in them from a traditional cache. I don't think they should go, but if it's going to be a thing where it's based on an approvers opinion on whether it should be allowed or not, then the best thing is not to allow them.

 

quote:

 

If the guidelines on virtuals are relaxed then you will complain that the guidelines are too strict on traditionals (which you already complain about).


 

When have I complained about that the guidelines are too strict on traditionals? If anything I've stated they(guidelines) need to be more defined, which many accustom to "more rules".

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

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

Link to comment

I can't say I have a problem with the new guidelines surrounding virtual caches, but I also haven't tried to place any recently.

 

Of the virtuals I have approved, I would still believe that at least 2 of the 3 would still be approved under the new guidelines, which doesn't pose any conflict for me.

 

That's about all I have to say on the matter, because I don't feel like getting flamed at this point in time.

What I seem to be seeing over and over again is that the chief complaint is the simple fact that a virtual can't be placed if a traditional could also work there. Um, ok. If I were to reach around that extra 18" or so to pull a painted Altoids tin off to sign the log, then I'm most likely going to read the sign it's attached to as well. s

 

forumsig1.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
briansnat said: There was no groudswell of opinion in the forums against virtuals. I don't even recall a vocal minority coming out against them

 

thats not true. there was a spot in the forums, that is no longer there where erik the approver posted a thread complaining about "lame virtuals". that was the start of the whole thing.

 

quote:
evil rooster said 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.


 

a cache in every silly park is very similar

 

quote:
seneca said: Physical caches are approved all the time without subjective opinion being involved in any part of the approval process

 

this is a dadgum shame, see my above comment about a cache in every park.

 

I have agreed with seneca's sentiments in this post and believe he is correct. GC.com should just can virts all together. its unfortunate but the vocal minotiry has won. i am surprised tptb didn't cave on the stats. Further, back when the issue first came out in the forums (the section of the forums formerlly used to air out approval greviences) my suggestion was to get yourself some free web space and create your own cache listing there. you don't get a smiley for finding a "underground cache" but who cares, its not about the numbers, right?

 

The beauty of geocaching the way it WAS back when gc.com really got going was simple. People of all ages and abilities could compete on a level playing field. this was really a great thing. the only other pastime i know of, that people of all walks could be "competative" was golf. to bad geocaching, as the vision exists here and now isn't the same way.

 

danny boggs

 

SR and dboggny.

 

SMLlogo.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

When have I complained about that the guidelines are too strict on traditionals?


Hmmmmmm...

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

Markwelled

 

I got bored after 20. Sort of the same stuff over and over.

 

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

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

19490_2900.jpg

Link to comment

Hmmm, Who to believe?

We have people of every persuasion, from the mouse cheese guy with 60 posts for every cache he has found, to admins who seemingly hate virtuals and yet 35% of their finds are webcams, locationless, cito, Virts or events. None of which measure up to the precious GC.com mantra of, "The site is called geocaching because your supposed to find caches".

Quite a disfunctional family we have here.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

Hmmm, Who to believe?

We have people of every persuasion, from the mouse cheese guy with 60 posts for every cache he has found, to admins who seemingly hate virtuals and yet 35% of their finds are webcams, locationless, cito, Virts or events. None of which measure up to the precious GC.com mantra of, "The site is called geocaching because your supposed to find caches".

Quite a disfunctional family we have here.

 

http://www.geocachingwa.org

 

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

 


 

you make two points here, one of which is exactly the opposite of what i was saying. obviously you didn't listen to my enlightened point of view icon_cool.gif. your point about the "prescious mantra" is well received. however, your put down for what kinds of caches people find/don't find is sad. you see, you never know what circumstances exist. these circumstances, all be it unkown to you, still allow someone to play the game. Further, it should allow them to play the game without issue.

 

SR and dboggny.

 

SMLlogo.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

 

The rules (or guidelines if you prefer) are in place to help reduce the number of poorly planned virtuals.


 

What measures are in place to minimise the number of "poorly planned traditional caches?" None???

Then by default there are MORE restrictions on virtuals. Therefor if your goal is to remove "poorly planned caches", you should apply your restrictions to all caches.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sranddboggny.us:

 

you see, you never know what circumstances exist. these circumstances, all be it unkown to you, still allow someone to play the game. Further, it should allow them to play the game without issue.

 

SR and dboggny.

 


 

I agree completely. I only was commenting on the Ironic aspects I've witnessed here.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

Hmmm, Who to believe?

We have people of every persuasion, from the mouse cheese guy with 60 posts for every cache he has found, to admins who seemingly hate virtuals and yet 35% of their finds are webcams, locationless, cito, Virts or events. None of which measure up to the precious GC.com mantra of, "The site is called geocaching because your supposed to find caches".

Quite a disfunctional family we have here.


quote:
Originally posted by sranddboggny.us

your point about the "prescious mantra" is well received. however, your put down for what kinds of caches people find/don't find is sad.


Thanks dboggny.

 

Since my finds compute to 35 percent other types, I guess you are talking about me Ish-n-Isha. If you have read my post here over time you would know that I do like virtual caches and yes I do visit them as reflected in my profile. My problem is with creating a virtual cache out of every brass plaque riveted to a piece of concrete or every etched piece of marble or every statue of a famous person, etc. If nothing else, I would think you could say that I could have a good perspective on cache types since I have in fact visited every type of cache including a Planet of the Apes Cache.

 

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

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

19490_2900.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
What measures are in place to minimise the number of "poorly planned traditional caches?" None???

Then by default there are MORE restrictions on virtuals. Therefor if your goal is to remove "poorly planned caches", you should apply your restrictions to all caches.


 

It's a lot harder for an admin to determine if a real cache is a poorly planned one. They don't have much more than the coordinates and topo maps to go by. That can tell you some things, but not enough to determine if the cache is a decent one.

 

But when the verification info for a virtual says, "to log this send me an e-mail with the name of D.A.R. chapter that sponsored the flagpole and the date it was placed", you have a good idea that it might not quite be worthy of a coffe table book.

 

"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

Ok mtn-man, I went through those markwells and not a single one is of me complaining about guidelines for tradiotionals being too strict. I've made statements in challenge of what the guidelines don't say and what is being enforced. The guidelines are inadequate all around. How about putting in the guidelines what is being enforced?

 

Example:

No caches near active RR's. What is considered near?

 

What is the proper distance that a person should reside from a cache before it is considered to be a vacation cache or a cache that they can not properly maintain, or get to in a timely manner upon reported problems?

 

The idea appears to be that "we won't define anything at all, in order that we can enforce our rules as we like." That way when someone complains about it, then there's some room for interpretation in many different ways.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

The rules (or guidelines if you prefer) are in place to help reduce the number of poorly planned virtuals.


What measures are in place to minimise the number of "poorly planned traditional caches?" None???


The 0.1 mile rule, no caches within 150 of railroads, no knives, no guns, no alcohol, etc

quote:

Then by default there are MORE restrictions on virtuals.


Since the game is about CACHES, not waypoints, anything that is not really a cache should have stricter rules.

quote:

Therefor if your goal is to remove "poorly planned caches", you should apply your restrictions to all caches.


That's why there is a 'this cache should be archived' option on every cache page.

 

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 Woodsters Outdoors:

I'm not...i just wanted to have a record of what they typed in case they changed it...waiting to see how long that little yellow triangle takes...

 

Doesn't bother what they think...it wasn't called for...but I wanted to try that yellow traingle out anyway...


 

So you reported the message to get it removed, but then you copied into a message so there would be a record of what was typed?? Why not just leave the message and everyone judge it as they see fit.

 

--RuffRidr

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

Since the game is about CACHES, not waypoints, anything that is not really a cache should have stricter rules.


 

Maybe this game should be "about CACHES, not waypoints", but that is not the case. So long as virtuals are allowed to be intermingled in the same place and the same format as physical caches, then Geocaching is about waypoints, whether you like it or not.

 

The problem is, the two very different concepts are being intermingled, creating problems, that results in the concepts being treated very differently but not separately. This appears unfair - but under the current format is probably necessary. Imagine if Benchmarking were not treated separately and this site simply added the 70,000 benchmarks to the cache pages!

 

The main, fundamental difference in the current treatment of physical caches and virtual caches, is the subjective aesthetic judgment being used at the approval stage. In the Geocaching game that I like to play, it is fundamental that when I hide a cache, its subjective aesthetic value will be left up to me. It can then be left to the finders to judge whether or not the cache is aesthetically pleasing or not. If I seek any approval at all in this regard, it is that of the finders. The approvers currently allow me to play that way if its a physical cache. They don't if it’s a virtual. They don't because Geocaching.com doesn't want 70,000 "benchmark" type waypoints cluttering up the physical cache pages.

 

The solution they have come up with is not appropriate. I believe, my solution to get rid of them altogether from the physical cache pages is far preferable. There is obviously an interest in them, so put them somewhere else, as with benchmarks.

 

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

Link to comment

What measures are in place to minimise the number of "poorly planned traditional caches?"

 

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

The 0.1 mile rule, no caches within 150 of railroads, no knives, no guns, no alcohol, etc


We are speaking of only the additional restrictions placed on virtuals, the DIFFERENCES.

Since the 0.1 mile rule, and no caches within 150 of railroads, are for all types, and placement of knives, guns, and alcohol are impossible, your example of these as a restriction on "poorly planned traditionals" is illogical since the classic reasons given to restrict virts are not because too many people placed the m in the middle of the tracks, but because of low INTEREST items which by deffinition are subjective.

quote:
Since the game is about CACHES, not waypoints,....

No. Thats how YOU play the game. Dont think you can tell anyone how they can play this game. Fact is GC.com is a buisness and the fact it would cater to where it percieves the largest market share is, is no suprise. Somehow if people were only interested in locationless, for example, I dont picture Jeremy sticking to the "moral" highground all the way to bankruptcy while sobbing, "Its called GC.com because its about caches.. not waypoints."

 

Therefor if your goal is to remove "poorly planned caches", you should apply your restrictions to all caches.

 

quote:
That's why there is a 'this cache should be archived' option on every cache page.


 

So you log, 'this cache should be archived' simply because in your estimation they are boring?

Can't you see the heart of the discussion is about the subjective interest of a virtual that varies with each person, verses nuts and bolts issues with traditionals like, The 0.1 mile rule, no caches within 150 of railroads, no knives, no guns, no alcohol, etc.

 

Apples and oranges mostly.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Ok mtn-man, I went through those markwells and not a single one is of me complaining about guidelines for traditionals being too strict.


One of the main topics I Markwelled was the one where you complained over and over about the guideline regard placing traditional caches on vacation. You argued over and over that it was too strict. You also posted to a topic called "Making Vacation Caches acceptable" arguing over and over about the guideline on traditional vacation caches being banned.

 

You have posted here regarding the guidelines for traditional cache, but that is off topic. I will tell you that the guidelines are being redone right now.

 

<personal editorial>

I'm not here to "impress" anybody. I have done lots of volunteer work and all of it has been 100% fulfilling and rewarding... until this. As I have said in the past, I get many thank you emails regarding different issues. At least the bad emails have been few and far between. It does not surprise me that admins quit though. In some peoples eyes we can do no right. I know from business that there are people that you cannot please no matter what you do. I realize that, I just do the best I can and move on. I do know that all the admins are nice people. It is a treat to be able to work with them. Like many admins, I wonder sometimes if this is worth it.

 

BassoonPilot, I don't want to impress you.

All I would like is your respect.

</personal rant>

 

You may now resume your discussion regarding virtual rules.

 

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

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

19490_3000.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

 

BassoonPilot, I don't want to impress you.

All I would like is your respect.


 

Well, I was trying to be nice. But I do find it hard respecting anyone, and especially someone in your position, who, apparently with great pride, displays bogus stats.

 

You would undoubtedly seek to have banned a person you caught doing on this website what you did on the KeenPeople site.

 

Oh, I know. "But it's only a harmless prank." Yeah, we've been hearing words to those effect about many matters at geocaching.com lately. But I say no, it is not a "harmless prank," but rather a matter of honor and respect.

Link to comment

It is simply an illustration of how easy it is to fake it. Several cachers have noted that they never thought of that fact. If keenpeople wants me to remove it I will be more than happy to.

 

EDIT... It is also a joke toward Marky who is number 1 in that version of stats right now. He was wondering if someone was going to bump him from the top spot.

 

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

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

19490_3000.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

It is simply an illustration of how easy it is to fake it. Several cachers have noted that they never thought of that fact.


 

They didn't know that numbers they entered manually could be faked? Are these same people permitted to wander the streets unaccompanied?

 

quote:
If keenpeople wants me to remove it I will be more than happy to.

 

There you have it. Don't "do the right thing until/unless someone forces you to." That's most honorable, most worthy of respect.

 

quote:
EDIT... It is also a joke toward Marky who is number 1 in that version of stats right now.

EDIT ... I knew about the joke, and thought it was funny for a few minutes. But when you didn't "fix it," the humor quickly went flat.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on October 10, 2003 at 09:54 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
maybe the rules that existed when you joined should apply to you.

Ok, so only people that were here 2 years ago may place traditionals within 150 feet of a railroad? The rules evolve, live with it.

quote:
Maybe this game should be "about CACHES, not waypoints", but that is not the case. So long as virtuals are allowed to be intermingled in the same place and the same format as physical caches, then Geocaching is about waypoints, whether you like it or not.

<snip>

The solution they have come up with is not appropriate. I believe, my solution to get rid of them altogether from the physical cache pages is far preferable. There is obviously an interest in them, so put them somewhere else, as with benchmarks.


That's what some of us are trying to change. Virtuals and Benchmarks should not be in the same category as traditional caches. It doesn't matter if GC.com lists them or all virtuals are moved to waypoint.org, they are different types and should be separate.

quote:
We are speaking of only the additional restrictions placed on virtuals, the DIFFERENCES.

The difference is that traditionals have standards based on location and content of the cache. Virtuals have standards that they be interesting and only placed where traditionals are not possible.

quote:
Dont think you can tell anyone how they can play this game.

Gee, I thought that's why were having a discussion in the first place. The topic starter told us that virtual rules were too strict, we all give our input about the subject, new guidelines can be formed based on the discussion.

quote:
Somehow if people were only interested in locationless...

Again, if the discussions mentioned strong support for this type of 'cache', the logical step in business would be to make room for it on the site.

quote:
The main, fundamental difference in the current treatment of physical caches and virtual caches, is the subjective aesthetic judgment being used at the approval stage. In the Geocaching game that I like to play, it is fundamental that when I hide a cache, its subjective aesthetic value will be left up to me. It can then be left to the finders to judge whether or not the cache is aesthetically pleasing or not. If I seek any approval at all in this regard, it is that of the finders. The approvers currently allow me to play that way if its a physical cache. They don't if it’s a virtual. They don't because Geocaching.com doesn't want 70,000 "benchmark" type waypoints cluttering up the physical cache pages.

I want to join a football team, but I want to use a basketball instead of a football. It can then be left to the fans to judge whether or not the game is pleasing or not. The league currently allows me to play if I use a football. They don't if I use a basketball.

 

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

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...