Jump to content

Virtual Rules Too Strict


Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

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.


I've joined a ball playing team. They used to play football and basketball and soccer and ... But now some football fans are trying to convince the trainer to play football and nothing else. icon_wink.gif

 

Cornix

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

 

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.


 

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.


 

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

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.


 

This is the sort of thing I meant by that comment.

 

For clarity, I have no problem with any cacher having any opinion on how things should be run. But I am disappointed that others' prejudices are on their way to ruining my fun.

 

evilrooster

http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com

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

Link to comment

quote:
evilrooster wrote:

But I am disappointed that others' prejudices are on their way to ruining my fun.


That's the case in our neighbourhood as well. There are a lot of people here who LIKE virtuals as well as other variations on the game, but a small minority is making it difficult for the rest of us to have fun in a way that the rest of us agree with.

 

Yet, another case of the vocal minority getting their way.

 

*****

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

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.


Perhaps that is why you will never understand this issue. YOU ARE NOT ON A TEAM!

If you choose to use the "football" to represent a cache thats fine.

 

Problem is with no team, one person plays with his football by kicking it into the stands at the 50 yard line. He is happy doing this as it causes no one any harm.

Others go to the highest levels in the stadium and throw theirs to see who can throw farthest. No problem. They hurt no one.

A myriad of others find interesting ways to use their football. EACH HURTS NO ONE ELSE.

 

The real problem is the guys who complain that the others seem to be having too much fun and insist that every one instead hide their football in the outhouses like they do. Everyone else is fine letting all who want, hide their footballs in outhouses. But it is not enough for them. They seemingly cant be happy as long as they know others enjoy diffrent things than they do.

 

Isnt the fact that we can all play this game as you please enough for you?

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Ish-n-Isha wrote (in reference to Sax Man's post):

Perhaps that is why you will never understand this issue. YOU ARE NOT ON A TEAM!


Perhaps it is you that does not understand. Sax Man's analogy makes perfect sense to me. We are all part of a team that hides things and then finds things.

 

Although we're not on teams that directly compete against another team, we do in fact play this game with a team spirit -- if we didn't, there would be no game at all (unless of course, you want to go and hide a cache somewhere and consequently be the only one that goes to find it, i.e., the lone football player).

 

We are all on a team that plays both defensively (hiding) and offensively (finding).

 

That being said, where's the harm in variations of the game, whether it be in the form of virtuals, locationless, or other variations that people opt into playing?

 

*****

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cornix:

I've joined a ball playing team. They used to play football and basketball and soccer and ... But now some football fans are trying to convince the trainer to play football and nothing else.


No, you joined a specific team. Geo meaning geography, cache meaning store of items (go ahead, look it up in the dictionary). If you want to play a different sport than hiding and finding caches, you'll need to join a different team. There is enough room on the field, but this area is set aside for a particular sport.

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

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.


Perhaps that is why you will never understand this issue. YOU ARE NOT ON A TEAM!


My wife and kids aren't on my team?

Actually, read Jomarac's comments above about the team.

quote:
Problem is with no team, one person plays with his football by kicking it into the stands at the 50 yard line. He is happy doing this as it causes no one any harm.

Others go to the highest levels in the stadium and throw theirs to see who can throw farthest. No problem. They hurt no one.

A myriad of others find interesting ways to use their football. EACH HURTS NO ONE ELSE.

blah blah blah...


It's clear you didn't understand the football analogy.

 

We're playing Geocaching on this website. The game started by someone hiding a container and posting the coordinates on the Internet. Someone found the container and thought it was a great idea. More containers were hidden and found. The sport has grown. That is the sport, nothing else.

Another game was invented. Someone posted coordinates to a place. Others found the place and took pictures. More places were designated as places to find using coordinates.

 

The only similarity between the two activities is the use of the Global Positioning System to find the locations.

 

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 Jomarac5:

quote:
Ish-n-Isha wrote (in reference to Sax Man's post):

Perhaps that is why you will never understand this issue. YOU ARE NOT ON A TEAM!


Perhaps it is you that does not understand. Sax Man's analogy makes perfect sense to me. We are all part of a team that hides things and then finds things.

 

Although we're not on teams that directly compete against another team, we do in fact play this game with a team spirit -- if we didn't, there would be no game at all (unless of course, you want to go and hide a cache somewhere and consequently be the only one that goes to find it, i.e., the lone football player).

 

We are all on a team that plays both defensively (hiding) and offensively (finding).

 

That being said, where's the harm in variations of the game, whether it be in the form of virtuals, locationless, or other variations that people opt into playing?

 

*****


Sax Man's analogy is not equating a cache to a football, but rather the cache is analogous to a ball. There are different types of balls just as there are different types of caches. A game using a football uses one type of rules and a game using a basketball uses another set of rules. His analogy is indeed a good one.

 

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

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Sax Man's analogy is not equating a cache to a football, but rather the cache is analogous to a ball. There are different types of balls just as there are different types of caches. A game using a football uses one type of rules and a game using a basketball uses another set of rules. His analogy is indeed a good one.


Thanks, Mtn-Man, that was the point I was trying to make. Virtuals are different from traditionals, so the placement rules must be different as well.

 

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:
mtn-man wrote:

Sax Man's analogy is not equating a cache to a football, but rather the cache is analogous to a ball.


I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me or not.

 

I took Sax Man's analogy to mean that of the game itself -- not specifically the ball, not specifically the goal posts, but the spirit in which the game is played.

 

*****

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

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.


 

Those are basically in the same disagreement area. I never once said the guidelines were too strict. I challenged the fact that the guidelines are not defined and left open. They are full of holes, like swiss cheese. You can easily say don't place a cache while on vacation. Ok, what is on vacation? Sometimes people take a vacation and don't go anywhere. Sometimes they go thousands of miles, sometimes less than a 100. Nothing in the guidelines stated a distance factor. I also stated that I agreed in fact that if the term vacation cache was meant to simply mean a dropped cache, with no intent of maintenance, then no I don't agree with it.

 

quote:

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.

 


Good, hopefully they will have some substance. They are more of a FAQ right now. A person are told here are the guidelines. They follow them. Then they are disapproved for something that is not stated in the guidelines given to them. It's almost like the cachers have a different set of rules on what is allowed or not, than the approvers do.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Sax Man's analogy is not equating a cache to a football, but rather the cache is analogous to a ball. There are different types of balls just as there are different types of caches. A game using a football uses one type of rules and a game using a basketball uses another set of rules. His analogy is indeed a good one.


 

Carrying on with Sax Man's excellent analagy: Football and Basketball are played on different courts, with an entirely different format. That's the way it should be. Here they try to play two entirely different games at the same time on a field designed for only one! I could just imagine allowing basketballs to be used on a football field, during a football game, by football players. I guess the referees could probably minimize the problem if they insisted that only really really pretty aestheticlly pleasing basketballs could be used. Seriosly though, I think everybody would be happier if they decided that basketball be played on a hard surfaced court, with an entirely different format.

 

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

Link to comment

Maybe he will Seneca. We all know Jeremy reads these forums and you know he is probably forming some ideas of what to do. He has said that his future plans have to do with getting locationless caches back to the site again, and maybe he will deal with virtual caches after that. I personally would rather not want to see a moratorium put on their submission as was done with locationless caches.

 

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

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

Link to comment

Hmm... perhaps I did misread Sax Man's analogy somewhat. In that case:

 

quote:
Seneca wrote:

Football and Basketball are played on different courts, with an entirely different format


I suspect that you meant "each with an entirely different format" (not trying to nitpick). This makes sense. And as I've mentioned before on a few other threads, traditional caches and virtual/locationless caches should be considered completely different -- with no crossing-linking of stats. And no sharing of the 1/10th mile rule.

 

Personally, I think that the current virtual rules are not fair. The process is far too subjective. In a personal example, I submitted an idea for a virtual and was told that some admins thought it was alright, but some didn't like the idea. In the end the idea was rejected because the admin that I submitted the idea to, didn't agree with it. The impression I got was if an admin who liked the idea had seen it first, it probably would have been approved. Getting a cache approved should not be a 'luck of the draw' affair that depends on the approvers personal interpretation of the rules, or his/her mood of the day.

 

*****

 

[This message was edited by Jomarac5 on October 10, 2003 at 01:39 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

J5, I was not agreeing or disagreeing I guess. I was pointing out what I though GPSax's argument might be.

 

Drop it woodsters. Please split hairs about vacation caches and traditional caches elsewhere and please stay on topic.

 

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

Only replying to what you posted mtn-man..

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

Carrying on with Sax Man's excellent analogy: Football and Basketball are played on different courts, with an entirely different format. That's the way it should be. Here they try to play two entirely different games at the same time on a field designed for only one! I could just imagine allowing basketballs to be used on a football field, during a football game, by football players. I guess the referees could probably minimize the problem if they insisted that only really really pretty aestheticlly pleasing basketballs could be used. Seriosly though, I think everybody would be happier if they decided that basketball be played on a hard surfaced court, with an entirely different format.


Seneca's got it! Virtuals are a game played with different rules. Using a GPSr is the only common factor, traditionals and virtuals are different things. I'm not saying virtual caching is not a worthy endeavor, but make a separate area with clearly defined rules to allow it to grow on its own.

 

One of the biggest reasons admins are (or appear) so strict in new virtual submissions is that they don't want to block any location from having a traditional cache placed there in the future.

 

By removing virtuals from the main geocaching site you don't have to worry about the two fighting for the same space. That's partly why baseball and football aren't played in the same season. It's bad enough when they have to share a stadium in September.

 

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

]Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

It's clear you didn't understand the football analogy.

Perhaps it was because it was such a bad one. In your analogy the "fans" decide which one they like. Well fans are people who would rather talk about it than do it so maby your right after all.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Ish-n-Isha wrote (in referrence to Sax Man's post):

Perhaps it was because it was such a bad one. In your analogy the "fans" decide which one they like. Well fans are people who would rather talk about it than do it so maby your right after all.


LOL.

 

Four out of five cachers now recommend the football analogy (your results my vary).

 

How petty. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

*****

edit: typo

 

[This message was edited by Jomarac5 on October 10, 2003 at 02:53 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
No, you joined a specific team. Geo meaning geography, cache meaning store of items (go ahead, look it up in the dictionary).

 

So i guess we JUST now discovered these meanings? The expanded meanings we used so that we could include more types of caches BACK a year so ago were not good enough then, but they are now? explain this to me, obviously you know.

 

SR and dboggny.

 

[url=]http://www.graphlickz.com/NYCGEO][/url]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sranddboggny.us:

So i guess we JUST now discovered these meanings? The expanded meanings we used so that we could include more types of caches BACK a year so ago were not good enough then, but they are now? explain this to me, obviously you know.


No, I've used the definition of cache all along. I've posted it before, I'll let you search for it.

Way back when virtuals were introduced, there was plenty of room for both activities to exist on the same field. We've come to a point where it is necessary to either restrict one type of 'cache' or move it to another field. Maybe you missed what I said before, so here it is again:

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

We're playing Geocaching on this website. The game started by someone hiding a container and posting the coordinates on the Internet. Someone found the container and thought it was a great idea. More containers were hidden and found. The sport has grown. That is the sport, nothing else.

Another game was invented. Someone posted coordinates to a place. Others found the place and took pictures. More places were designated as places to find using coordinates.

 

The only similarity between the two activities is the use of the Global Positioning System to find the locations.


The time has come to either get rid of virtuals and let this site get back to geocaching or move virtuals to their own area or website. I acknowledge that many people like finding virtuals and that I have found a few myself. I would request that virtuals continue to exist, but in an area unrelated to geocaching. It can continue to be a part of Groundspeak, such as how they handle benchmarks, but it is a completely different activity than caching.

 

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:

We're playing Geocaching on this website. The game started by someone hiding a container and posting the coordinates on the Internet. Someone found the container and thought it was a great idea. More containers were hidden and found. The sport has grown. That is the sport, nothing else.

Another game was invented. Someone posted coordinates to a place. Others found the place and took pictures. More places were designated as places to find using coordinates.


 

i guess you wouldn't know this, but these things happened pretty close together on the gc.com timeline.

quote:

The only similarity between the two activities is the use of the Global Positioning System to find the locations.


sorry, guy, not true. For purposes of this game, they were both considered geocaches as well (regardless of whether or not there was a silly film canister at the location). A point you continually miss.

 

SR and dboggny.

 

Link to comment

You seem to miss the point that when this game started, there was plenty of room for all sorts of variations. As it has grown, there has been a need to enhance the rules of the game. Look at any other sport or activity, are there any that can say their rules have never been changed?

 

Silly film canisters? With only 7 virtual finds, I'm surprised you feel this way. Why do prefer hunting taditional caches if you think they are silly?

 

Woodsters, that's the problem. Virtuals should not be in the hide/seek a cache area. They should have their own area like benchmarks.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darknessbandbass.gif

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

Woodsters, that's the problem. Virtuals should not be in the hide/seek a cache area. They should have their own area like benchmarks.

 


 

Ditto, that has been the general concensus throughout. I think the disagreement is in how they are treated now. The "lockdown" on them was only a temporary solution. Eventually there will need to be a more permanent approach to them. Either allow them like others, put them in their own place or get rid of them alltogether.

 

Also, here's another lighthearted comment. If it is about geocaches, being traditional caches and not "variations" of the game, then does that mean puzzle caches, mystery caches, multi-caches and etc should be put on the same table as virtuals? And then you have event caches. Go to an event and get a find, but it's technically not a cache, right? icon_confused.gif

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Also if a virtual cache is not a geocache, then why is it included in the Hide/Seek a cache area?


 

Interesting logic. This is not an argument, or even a rhetorical question. It is a concise summary of the issue.

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

You seem to miss the point that when this game started, there was plenty of room for all sorts of variations. As it has grown, there has been a need to enhance the rules of the game.


 

The game itself has not grown; it has been diminished. Creativity in cache design and implementation is discouraged, so what you term as growth really amounts to nothing more than more people placing a higher number of generic caches. Ho-hum.

 

quote:
Silly film canisters? ... Why do prefer hunting taditional caches if you think they are silly?

 

I attribute the huge increase in the number of micro cache placements to the facts that:

 

1. They take little thought, time, or effort to create.

2. They can be dumped practically anywhere.

3. They are quick to win approval because the paramount "standard" used in approval is "does it adhere to the guidelines?".

 

And because the typical micro cache contains nothing but a scrap of paper to sign, I would say this trend is another example of the game being diminished.

 

I really don't care one iota if another virtual cache is ever approved, but let's be honest ... the typical micro cache is of even lower quality and of less interest and value than virtuals of the dreaded "historic marker along every roadway" type.

 

Hey, you might just have your curiosity piqued by that historic marker. What, besides a few viruses, are you going to get out of pulling another film canister out from under another garbage pail?

 

I know, I know ... it's all about the "core values" of the website. icon_rolleyes.gif

Link to comment

Actually I like micros. Although I can see an argument where some require less thought in implementing, I see it with regular caches as well. I don't think it matters what type of container a traditional cache is, it all depends on the hide technique. I have placed 2 caches, with one being a micro. It has been well received and proven difficult to find by some. I don't know how many caches (regular), that I've walked right up to and could see without searching. There are some good micros out there. Some do incorporate trade items of a very small nature as well.But where ever you look, there are going to be lame caches, and it's not just a certain type. We all have our favorite kinds to find, but it's not fair to lable a type as lame. I think lame is an individual thing and based on each individuals thought.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Also if a virtual cache is not a geocache, then why is it included in the Hide/Seek a cache area?


It is not the virtual target that makes it a cache. It is the question part of it and seeking the answer that makes it a geocache.

 

People places traditional caches to bring people to a specific location. Lots of these areas are special to the hider and they want to share it with the seeker. That works for both traditional and virtual caches (or any cache type except maybe event caches). Thats the "geo" part. The "cache" is the "high-tech hide and seek" part that makes geocaching what it is. My virtual caches take people to cool areas, but you still have to seek out the "cache", which is an answer to a question instead of a container. One of the toughest ones I have done was in Austin, TX. It took me 20 to 25 minutes to find the artist signature on a bronze statue. The statue was pretty cool and all and it was sort of out in the middle of nowhere, but I could see it from 300 feet away. The fun part of the virtual was finding the answer. I though I was going to have to take a "not found" but finally I found the "cache". By todays standard I think it was borderline and may not have been approved. But at least there was a challenge to the cache which made it very fun. There was another virtual about .2 miles away and I had the answer for that one immediately it was so easy. I walked away thinking "big deal". The first example was indeed a "cache". The second one to me was just another find. I found both before the guidelines changed, but looking back that is one that sort of stuck out that would have been an example of a cache that would not have been approved today. A micro could have easily been done at both locations for that matter.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Hey, you _might just_ have your curiosity piqued by that historic marker. What, besides a few viruses, are you going to get out of pulling another film canister out from under another garbage pail?

 

I know, I know ... it's all about the "core values" of the website. icon_rolleyes.gif


Uh, is it the web site's fault that a cacher hid a micro under a garbage pail? icon_rolleyes.gif Sorry, but that is blame shifting. You should log a cache like that as "not found" if you have such a problem with it and post a note saying that the cache is a bad cache and why. I don't think you can blame the web site if you have cachers hiding caches in bad locations. That is the cache creators fault.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason

"approver of all trades" -- per Woodsters Outdoors

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Uh, is it the web site's fault that a cacher hid a micro under a garbage pail? icon_rolleyes.gif Sorry, but that is blame shifting.


 

I placed no "blame" on anyone. It is a fact that garbage pail caches fall within the standards of approval and are considered superior to virtual caches by those who operate this website. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

"Is it the website's fault" that the standards are what they are? Well of course it is! Who created those standards; who applies those standards?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Uh, is it the web site's fault that a cacher hid a micro under a garbage pail? icon_rolleyes.gif Sorry, but that is blame shifting.


 

It is a fact that garbage pail caches fall within the standards of approval and are considered superior to virtual caches by those who operate this website.


 

What about those hidden among rubbish(acutally underneath) of other kinds and even state so in their description and then the crypted hint is "bring a bag, because there's a lot of garbage to pick up"?

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I really don't care one iota if another virtual cache is ever approved, but let's be honest ... the typical micro cache is of even lower quality and of less interest and value than virtuals of the dreaded "historic marker along every roadway" type.


 

I don't think the issue, at least at the approval stage, needs to be one of quality. I really like the idea that subjective quality is determined by the players. Of course there are high quality virtuals and low quality physicals, and I accept that perhaps a greater percentage of micros are of low quality. But physical caching is a game of "hide and seek" to which even the lowliest micro conforms. Virtual caching is a waypoint game where you are simply directed to a location - many of which are very worthwhile locations to vist.

 

I truly believe that the current subjective scrutiny given to virtuals, is not in place to improve the virtual game, but rather to deliberately limit the number of virtuals that exist, in order to maintain core Geocaching primarily as a "hide and seek" game, rather than a waypoint game.

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Also, here's another lighthearted comment. If it is about geocaches, being traditional caches and not "variations" of the game, then does that mean puzzle caches, mystery caches, multi-caches and etc should be put on the same table as virtuals? And then you have event caches. Go to an event and get a find, but it's technically not a cache, right? icon_confused.gif


 

Puzzle caches and multi caches usually end with a container making them traditional caches. Mystery caches, well that depends on the end result. I have one mystery cache with a logsheet that makes it a traditional.

Event caches...good question. Many events are like multi caches. There are temporary caches set up for cachers to find and many bring trade items to the gathering. The first one to find all temp caches gets first pick of the items. I know there are variations on events, but in this manner I treat it as a multicache. Some events are just for getting together as geocachers and having dinner. There are no caches to find, so I would consider this type to be a virtual.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darknessbandbass.gif

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

But physical caching is a game of "hide and seek" to which even the lowliest micro conforms. Virtual caching is a waypoint game where you are simply directed to a location - many of which are very worthwhile locations to vist.


 

Very well put, Seneca. This is what I meant earlier when I said virtuals are a different game and should be treated as such.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darknessbandbass.gif

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

Event caches...good question.


 

Of course event caches are really another entirely different animal and there is an argument to be made that they should not appear alongside regular cache listings. However, I generally accept them as just using the main cache pages as a bulletin board to advertise a geocaching related event. In view of the fact that they appear to be very worthwhile in bringing together the Geocaching community, the cache pages are the best place to advertise them, and that they make up a very small proportion of caches, I have no problem with them remaining where they are.

 

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

 

[This message was edited by seneca on October 11, 2003 at 10:52 AM.]

Link to comment

Seneca, what about them being counted as a find in the total find count?

 

My opinion is that they are a seperate thing as well. I have no problem with them at all in the way they are displayed on the site. But I think perhaps they need to be kept seperate from the total finds. Actually, and this is just my opinion, but I think they should be all kept seperate. Each type has their own beneficial value and accomplishments. Rather than having a total find of them put together, what about just keeping them seperately as they are now on the profiles? And then maybe remove the total find number on the cache logs.

 

For those that keep up with stats, there is an obvious difference in a person with 1000 locationless or virtual finds and another with 1000 regular finds or multi's.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Seneca, what about them being counted as a find in the total find count?


I really think this is a separate issue. One that would arise once it was decided to have virtuals as a separate game. I don't particularly like how the cache count by types is currently separated on my profile - I find it a bit confusing. I, notionally, do not consider benchmarks as part of my overall cache find count. I currently do consider virtuals and locationless ones as part of my find count, but my preference would four games each having their own separate formats, listing pages, maps and find counts: physicals, virtuals, locationless, and benchmarks.

 

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

Link to comment

The only part of this entire debate I see as indicating a true mistake in overlap between the multiple games of physical vs. virtual is a concern expressed by a few of the folks over virtuals taking space in the ".1 mile apart" restriction.

 

Virtuals and physical caches really should be two universes as far as the proximity rule is concerned.

 

However - I think that is the only point I agree as being a *reason* for separate games vs. what is really a preference choice. Why? Because when you take that issue away, it turns out that we are then playing the game on separate "fields" - the sports analogy falls apart once this is done. Geocaching.com is primarily a DATABASE - it tells me what virtual, locationless, and real GPS findable ites exist. I can choose to "hunt" whatever ones I desire. It reports, on the user stats page, what I have found of each type. If it would sum up the total of regular+multi+(perhaps) Other to give "physical cache count", then I could easily keep track of my statistics, and so could others.

 

Once that is done, I fail to see any other argument as anything more than "I don't want that kind of game played here because well, ..., I just don't WANT it."

 

If you feel that way, fine, but don't cloak that desire in some sort of logical explination complication. It needs none. You are allowed to prefer apples. I am allowed to prefer oranges. We don't need to justify it.

 

My preference - and that's all it is - is that I can use a single database lookup to find both physical and virtual caches in my area, and that I can see my 'find' list as a union of both. If Groundspeak chooses to separate these, so I have to make two queries, sigh... , that will be a real hassle for me, as I like to find both. But, I know that this is simply a *preference* of mine. There is no "reason" behind it.

 

-Jif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by TeamJiffy:

My preference - and that's all it is - is that I can use a single database lookup to find both physical and virtual caches in my area, and that I can see my 'find' list as a union of both.


 

Why not add 70,000 benchmarks to that list? So that when we do a single look at the maps or cache lists of nearby caches every nearby benchmark shows up. Why stop there - why not also add, every place that you can stop for a cup of coffee - which will also show up on our unfound cache list? Now that would be a good addition to the database.

 

Why have geocaching.com at all. Why not just one big "Google" database that when we want to find something to do - like find a cache - or kick a football - we just push a button and get a list of everything we could ever conceive of doing within a 10, 20, or 30 mile radius of our postal code?

 

Geocaching.com has created a unique and specific database very well tailored to those who like hiding and seeking physical caches. It has also created a very unique, and separate benchmark database, very well tailored to that pursuit. The virtual and locationless caches, are spinnoffs, which although are good ideas in themselves, have been clumsily layered onto a database for which they were not designed and, for the most part, are not welcomed. Geocaching.com recognizes this, as is evidenced by their proactive efforts to limit their growth.

 

I am not "cloaking any desire" to get rid of virtuals. I would like to see them improved, by being placed into a well designed separate database, that meshes smoothly within the existing Geocaching.com site, so that they can flourish.

 

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

 

[This message was edited by seneca on October 11, 2003 at 03:39 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:

Silly film canisters? With only 7 virtual finds, I'm surprised you feel this way. Why do prefer hunting taditional caches if you think they are silly?


 

personally, we like to hunt virtual caches when we are "out of town". I don't really gain anything by finding things in NYC that i already pretty much know exist there already. but, out of town virts are cool sometimes.

 

We do prefer physical caches, but see bassoonpilots post below. he pretty much answered the question for me.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

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

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NM_Geo/http://www.keenpeople.com/stats/

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ihazeltine/bandbass.gif


 

Someone else may have mentioned this, but I have not yet read the entire thread. But, perhaps VC's could be moved to a "seperate" site. I like some virtuals and love finding history. I've done multi-cache and virtual historic caches and love them both.

 

Bear and Ting

 

I thought I was a little off, then I looked at my GPS and discovered I accurate to 12 ft.

 

Geocachers don't NEED to ask for directions!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bear and Ting:

Someone else may have mentioned this, but I have not yet read the entire thread. But, perhaps VC's could be moved to a "seperate" site. I like some virtuals and love finding history. I've done multi-cache and virtual historic caches and love them both.


 

That's exactly what this post is about. If virtuals had their own area of the site or were moved to a different site, that game would grow as geocaching has. There is a site that already exists, www.waypoint.org , but it isn't set up the way this site is.

 

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

Good grief, does this NEVER END!!!!!!

 

I like virtuals. I have placed virtuals. I like going to a *WELL DONE* virtual.

 

I hate *LAME* virtuals. I hate *LAME* traditionals.

 

GC.com hates *LAME* virtuals. GC.com would really kind of like to not have to deal with even the best of virtuals. GC.com couldn't care less about *LAME* traditionals.

 

That is what *appears* to be going on to those of us who are not in the line of succession to the throne.

 

However, even if perceptions are wrong, (and when have perceptions NOT been wrong around here...LOL) it doesn't matter.... just get over it!

 

It's just a GAME!!! If they did away with virtuals tomorrow it wouldn't make a hamster's hair difference!!! I would STILL have to go to work on Monday.

 

Now go play for crying out loud.....sheesh.

 

And in compliance with Snoogan's request, the number is:

 

*1-800-wah freakin wah*!

 

ROFLMFSAO!!!!! icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_cool.gif

 

"Afghanistan was a battle. Iraq was a battle. The war goes on."

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...