Jump to content

Virtual Rules Too Strict


Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

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, http://www.waypoint.org , but it isn't set up the way this site is.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ihazeltine/bandbass.gif

 

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

 

you obviously didn't pay attention to Bassoonpilot's comments.

Link to comment

Huh, a long thread...

 

I don't like the idea of geocaching.com administrators "preapproving" caches, virtual or otherwise. Especially if the requirements are not clearly defined. But even if they are clearly defined, I don't like them if the requirements are purely determined by these admin guys themselves, instead of the geocaching community. The administrators are supposed to serve the geocaching community. They are not supposed to define the rules to geocaching. They are just admins, that's all, nobody gave power to them to define the rules of the sport. If they don't have the resources to handle virtual caches, that's fine, then the geocaching community will find another way to handle them, e.g. another website, managed by other people.

 

However, let me come up with a suggestion, I don't know if anyone else has come up with this idea but here it is: geocaching.com should make it possible for the loggers of caches (especially virtuals) to rate each cache, say, with a simple score from 1 to 5. Then when you are requesting lists of caches, the average rating would be shown for each cache (the average rating would make sense after, say, 10 loggings of the cache). This method would make it simple to find the real good (virtual) caches and few people would care for the low-rated ones. And that's it, no subjective preapproval by admins, just cacher ratings. I would trust the ratings of fellow cachers a lot more than the opinion of some unknown guy who happens to be an admin for the website.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

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.

 

...

 

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


It's clear you don't understand it either icon_wink.gif

 

Foot meaning the lower part of your leg, ball meaning a spherical object (go ahead, look it up in the dictionary).

 

So why are you guys running around with EGG-shaped objects in your HANDS? If you want to play a different sport than kicking a ball with your foot, you'll need to join a different team.

 

Couldn't resist icon_biggrin.gif

Cornix

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by as77:

However, let me come up with a suggestion, I don't know if anyone else has come up with this idea but here it is: geocaching.com should make it possible for the loggers of caches (especially virtuals) to rate each cache, say, with a simple score from 1 to 5. Then when you are requesting lists of caches, the average rating would be shown for each cache (the average rating would make sense after, say, 10 loggings of the cache). This method would make it simple to find the real good (virtual) caches and few people would care for the low-rated ones. And that's it, no subjective preapproval by admins, just cacher ratings. I would trust the ratings of fellow cachers a lot more than the opinion of some unknown guy who happens to be an admin for the website.


 

It has been mentioned before. The problem I see that could arise from that, is unfair ratings between each other. i.e. a person doesn't get a cache approved on here and they go and start putting negative ratings on others caches. Then you wil;l have people trying to get their caches high on the list and vadalizing the others ratings. For the most part, people will probably be fair about it, but you will have a few that will abuse it. The only way around it would be to have it where they could only rate the cache when posting a found and then their rating goes along with their posting. But then people will not want their thoughts to be known on a cache and will say it's intrusive posting it with their name on the cache log.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

Link to comment

There is a Hungarian caching site, www.gecaching.hu, where they have this cache rating system and it works quite well. The site has been running for a couple of years and it is the main site of the Hungarian geocaching community. Each cacher rates each cache he or she finds, assigning three scores: the environment, the hide (except for virtual caches) and the info given on the web page. No complaints so far about the system, as far as I know.

 

Instead of speculating about possible abuses, I think we should just go for it.

 

(By the way, the Hungarian site is in all respects far superior to the geocaching.com site. A lot more search options, sorting options, download options, configurable maps, etc. etc. And it is completely free (no paid memberships at all). But of course, the site is in Hungarian and is restricted to caches in Hungary.)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by as77:

The administrators are supposed to serve the geocaching community. They are not supposed to define the rules to geocaching. They are just admins, that's all, nobody gave power to them to define the rules of the sport.


You must not have read the threads about stats. It's clear that the geocaching community wants a leaderboard, but TPTB don't.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

Link to comment

I'm working on a virtual right now, but am I wasting my time? This virtual is in a area where there are no caches, it is impossible to place a cache. The site is a historical landmark with great history. It is also a great place to visit and you will learn and see many new things.

 

I just don't get this denying of virtual caches lately, big deal, approve them and if someone doesn't want to see it then pass on it. But frankly I think virtuals are great, they've shown me things I'd have never known other wise!!! I feel like I've accomplished or done something worthy when I've done a virtual!

 

Firehouse16 & Code3

"Dave, Teresa & the 2 kids"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Firehouse16 & Code3:

I'm working on a virtual right now, but am I wasting my time? This virtual is in a area where there are no caches, ......(snip)


 

It must be in a Nat'l Park or somewhere else where geocaching has been specifically banned...?

Ask your local approver about it before you spend much time figuring out the logistics of your proposed virtual.

 

Seems to me that if you have a ton of questions that must be answered about the location (answers that CAN'T be found online), and the place is 'wothy of being in a coffee-table book', then you might be ok. But it is largely based on opinion....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Firehouse16 & Code3:

I just don't get this denying of virtual caches lately, big deal, approve them and if someone doesn't want to see it then pass on it. But frankly I think virtuals are great, they've shown me things I'd have never known other wise!!! I feel like I've accomplished or done something worthy when I've done a virtual!


 

I think you can blame the current stance on all the makers of the crappy virtual caches out there. For every good virtual, there are 3 or 4 bad ones where there is some marker that you drive up to and take a picture of.

 

--RuffRidr

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by RuffRidr:

I think you can blame the current stance on all the makers of the crappy virtual caches out there. For every good virtual, there are 3 or 4 bad ones where there is some marker that you drive up to and take a picture of.

--RuffRidr


 

...As opposed to all the crappy physical caches?

 

evilrooster

http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com

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

Link to comment

quote:
I don't like the idea of geocaching.com administrators "preapproving" caches, virtual or otherwise. Especially if the requirements are not clearly defined. But even if they are clearly defined, I don't like them if the requirements are purely determined by these admin guys themselves, instead of the geocaching community.

 

Geocaching.com is not the geocaching community. It's a listing service that the geocaching community goes to so they can get cache coordinates. As a listing service, they have their own rules and standards and choose what caches they will and won't list. I would expect no less. There are other listing services out there. If you don't like the rules of this one, try another.

 

quote:
The administrators are supposed to serve the geocaching community.

 

No they are not. They are supposed to serve geocaching.com.

 

quote:
They are not supposed to define the rules to geocaching.

 

They aren't. They are simply defining the rules for listing caches on this website.

 

"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

Most Virtuals are Disabled Person friendly, both in creating one and in visiting one.

 

A person who wants to participate, and is restricted in accessability may very well want to createcaches that are virtuals. (They do not have the hardships of getting to them to maintain a cache container, and yet still can place caches as virtuals) in addition a lot of virtuals are essentially waypoints, and getting close enougt determine the answers for verification may be a lot easier for the disabled than actually touching the spot, and signing in the log book.

 

Sure I believe that log books are good idea, and needed as a minimum in micros and traditionals, but VIRTUALS have an important place as well in the game

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THIS is the PUBLIC face of Geocaching, when someone learns of the sport this is where they come to

learn more, what are YOU showing them?

http://blacksheep.rootsweb.com/

International Black Sheep Society of Genealogists

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bo Peep & The Sheep:

Most Virtuals are Disabled Person friendly, both in creating one and in visiting one.

 

A person who wants to participate, and is restricted in accessability may very well want to createcaches that are virtuals. (They do not have the hardships of getting to them to maintain a cache container, and yet still can place caches as virtuals) in addition a lot of virtuals are essentially waypoints, and getting close enougt determine the answers for verification may be a lot easier for the disabled than actually touching the spot, and signing in the log book.

 

Sure I believe that log books are good idea, and needed as a minimum in micros and traditionals, but VIRTUALS have an important place as well in the game


 

Good point! So in other words Geocaching.com is now being unfriendly to disabled and handicapped (I added that) people.

 

This does bring up a good point though. If it is now being required that instead of a virtual that it be made part of a multi, then what about those that can't physically get to some of the physical caches themselves? I wonder if a lawsuit would ever come out of anything like that. You always here about people suing establsihments for not having handicap facilities. I'm wondering if someone would or could actually sue for not having handicapped accessible caches..lol icon_razz.gif

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

My Stats

Found: 70

Hidden: 2

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

Geocaching.com is not the geocaching community. It's a listing service that the geocaching community goes to so they can get cache coordinates. As a listing service, they have their own rules and standards and choose what caches they will and won't list. I would expect no less. There are other listing services out there. If you don't like the rules of this one, try another.


 

Could you list a few?

 

quote:
quote:
The administrators are supposed to serve the geocaching community.

 

No they are not. They are supposed to serve geocaching.com.


 

And geocaching.com is supposed to serve the geocaching community. The fate of geocaching.com (and in the end the salary of its admins) depends on how well they serve the geocaching community. If they ignore the wishes of the community then they won't have a bright future.

 

quote:
They aren't. They are simply defining the rules for listing caches on _this_ website.

 

This is what I said, too. However, if the geocaching community does not like these rules then the cachers are not going to use the website. This means that if the geocaching.com admins are wise enough then they should pay attention to what the community likes or dislikes and shape their policies accordingly. I personally don't like the idea of some unknown admin somewhere preapproving virtual caches. They should not do that. If they say that they won't support virtual caches at all, that's fine, there will be other websites listing them. But this subjective preapproval thing is too fishy.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

I wonder if a lawsuit would ever come out of anything like that. You always here about people suing establsihments for not having handicap facilities. I'm wondering if someone would or could actually sue for not having handicapped accessible caches..


So sue God for not installing elevators in the mountains

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by as77:

 

And geocaching.com is supposed to serve the geocaching community. The fate of geocaching.com (and in the end the salary of its admins) depends on how well they serve the geocaching community. If they ignore the wishes of the community then they won't have a bright future.


 

But they are listening to the community. Havent you heard?

Evidently now the demand for rodents held hostage in a container is so overwhelming that GC has given the masses what they want.

You can now trade your household rodents and reptiles for someone elses!

 

 

 

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

Link to comment

I would just like to add my two cents into the fray here. For various reasons, virtual caches appeal to me as much as physical caches, or even benchmarks. The majority of the virtuals I've logged have been pretty lame and/or easy (or at least I think others would perceive them that way) BUT they still mean something to me.

 

For instance, GCA4B0 is one that probably shouldn't have been approved, as the verification answer should be easily found on-line, but for me, just visiting the site brought back childhood memories of seeing this event. Likewise, GCE1CD is one that brought back memories of singing some of the songs made famous by this 'character' with my parents when they came on the radio. Just being at these locations was emotionally uplifting to me. A physical cache at either location would be out of the question, and placing one offset wouldn't have added to my experience. The other virtuals I've sought out relate to Lewis and Clark, which is a topic I personally find very fascinating, but not everyone shares that passion. Now, for someone else, I'm certain these 2 virtuals I mention mean nothing, and I'm fine with that. Quite frankly, if it weren't for the childhood memories these two evoked, I probably wouldn't have done them myself.

 

I've placed one virtual multi-cache out there (GC635E, and I think/hope that it would be approved today. It is certainly more difficult than 90%+ of the physical caches out there in my area, and so far every one who has finished it has loved it. I don't think every virtual has to be as challenging as this one, but I do agree with other posters that it should be more than just go to a "waypoint and e-mail some number or text to verify". But, as I mention above, some "lame" ones are still worth doing (at least for some people).

 

The thing I don't understand is the prejudice that some posters have against virtuals. Sure, a lot of virtuals are just a point you go to and find some information, but a lot of physical caches are basically the same thing, except instead of finding information, you're finding a box full of trinkets (which, so far, I've been able to find in a couple minutes each time). What's the big difference? In the end, you're finding something you sought to seek out. Does it [i}really[/i] matter that much what's at the end of the proverbial rainbow?

 

Now, before anybody jumps down my throat, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to advocate one type of cache over the other. I just don't see the big deal. A well-thought out and placed physical cache and a well-thought out virtual cache seem equally rewarding to me, and I would like to see the opportunity to seek both continue.

Link to comment

quote:
Sure, a lot of virtuals are just a point you go to and find some information, but a lot of physical caches are basically the same thing, except instead of finding information, you're finding a box full of trinkets (which, so far, I've been able to find in a couple minutes each time). What's the big difference? In the end, you're finding something you sought to seek out.

 

A traditional cache is hidden and the ones I've been able to find in a couple minutes I can count on the fingers of one hand. Virtuals aren't hidden: they're quite public, rarely a challenge, involve a test and are usually something I never stopped to look at for a reason.

 

If folks want to hide and find virtuals, then more power to them. I just wish I could filter them out of my Nearest Caches search.

 

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Wearer of duplicative protective headgear.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by CloneZone:

The thing I don't understand is the prejudice that some posters have against virtuals.


 

The main prejudice against virtuals is that exhibited by Geocaching.com. They treat virtual caches and physical caches very differently. That is the root of the controversy. Virtual caches are discouraged, plain and simple. They are only allowed if it is impossible (or illegal) to hide a physical cache, and even then only if it is judged to be of compelling interest to everybody.

 

CloneZone, you have presented a good argument in favour of virtual caches. How would you feel if they were listed and kept track of entirely separately from physical caches (like Benchmarks) and were then pro-actively encouraged by the admin?

 

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

Link to comment

As a relatively new cacher (we just started this past May) I guess I wasn't aware of the politics involved with placing a virtual cache. I just spent the past two weeks trying to get a virtual cache approved. My first submission was somehow "lost" so after a week I resubmitted it. I then received a response from the duplicate submission, stating the approver needed more info to approve. I provided reasons why this was a "worthy" virtual, TWICE, and both emails were left unanswered. I then REsubmitted the cache for the second time, with additional information about the uniqueness of the spot, only to be denied. This spot was historic, unique, weird, and something that most people have never seen in their life. I suppose I could accept their decision to deny easier if I had not just done a virtual that was in a city park where we had to walk over a bridge and count the trees that were there!

 

It then occurred to me to check all the virtuals in my area. I checked the first 10 pages that came up with my zip-code match. All but one of the virutals was placed by a premium or charter member. Being somewhat new, we have not joined as premium members yet, but now I'm beginning to wonder if we HAD been premium members when we submitted this virtual cache if it would have been approved.

 

Any ideas on this?

Link to comment

So, who are these mysterious approvers anyway? Anybody knows anything about them?

 

Separating the virtual caches from the traditional ones would be a perfect solution. Actually, if the sorting/filtering/searching options were more flexible, this would not even be necessary.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

That would be bringing religion into it...lol

 

Geocaching was man made. Geocaching.com performs a service. I was just wondering if it would ever come to that. I'm sure there wil lbe someone out there that will say something about it.


Jeremy has said many times that Geocaching.com is only a LISTING service. Can handicapped people access the list? Yes.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

Jeremy has said many times that Geocaching.com is only a LISTING service. Can handicapped people access the list? Yes.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness


 

True, but does Geocaching.com list anything? Does it list handicapped accessible caches? It denies some of those caches that are good for those that are handicapped.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

My Stats

Found: 70

Hidden: 2

Link to comment

I've given virtuals some thought recently, after reading these posts. Generally I don't do them unless there happens to be one nearby a regular cache location, and I have yet to find one that gave me near the sense of satisfaction associated with finding a real cache. I do have one virtual cache that probably would not have been approved under the current rules, which would not have bothered me -- I'd just put out a micro (and probably replace it frequently).

 

The interesting thing is that the concept of cache ('a hiding place for concealing and preserving provisions or implements' 'a secure place of storage'), when used a noun, has a pretty specific meaning -- much like a treasure chest. It is a physical thing that is hidden, with something else inside that you are looking for -- some items to trade and/or a log to sign.

 

In contrast, finding a virtual cache is just driving or walking to a point based on its Lat / Lon and then observing it. In my experience virtuals are not "hidden objects" once you get to their coordinates.

 

Perhaps virtual hunting should be called something different than cache hunting. I suppose the same goes for reverse caches.

 

I'd have no problem if GC.com changed the system of adding up finds to include only the real caches. It would reduce my total by about 10, and the other things, not called caches, could be listed in another category.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

Jeremy has said many times that Geocaching.com is only a LISTING service. Can handicapped people access the list? Yes.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness


 

True, but does Geocaching.com list anything? Does it list handicapped accessible caches? It denies some of those caches that are good for those that are handicapped.

 

Brian

http://www.woodsters.com

 

_My Stats_

_Found: 70

Hidden: 2_


 

Actually it denies caches* that are good for people who like virtuals.

 

Whether or not each individual virtual denied is "good" for those that are "handicapped" is going to depend on the tastes and abilities of the individual.

 

* edit: actually it only denies the listing of some virtuals on a single specific cache listing site. Nothing Jeremy, Groundspeak and Co. do here denies any sort of cache anywhere. They just chose not to list them, which is their call. That doesn't mean the cache can't be placed and listed elsewhere.

 

________________________

What is caches precious?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

 

Are you saying virtuals should be approved just because they are handicapped accessible? Talk about discrimination!


 

No, I am saying that making caches accessable to the mobility disabled is a GOOD idea, and unfortunately the majority of HIKING caches exclude the mobility challenged.

 

In my area the majority of caches are on 4,000' "hills", at the top of a unimproved firebreak/trails. My three disabled kids and I, normally have to bypass attempts at these because they are inaccessable to us.

 

The few we have attempted became ordeals.

 

Virtual "flatland" caches are an option that most mobility challenged people can access. Sure I can see http://www.geocaching.com wanting a physical cache if feasable, but if that requires bushwacking, climbing, or even just rough ground, then a significant portion of the populace is excluded, UNLESS the allowance of accessable caches is continued. Virtuals are not MADE to be handicap friendly, but many of them ARE.

 

I feel it is ONE reason not to discourage the creation, or ban them outright. (you can change the NAME, and allow people to filter them out, but do not delete them)

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THIS is the PUBLIC face of Geocaching, when someone learns of the sport this is where they come to

learn more, what are YOU showing them?

http://blacksheep.rootsweb.com/

International Black Sheep Society of Genealogist

Link to comment

I see the term "virtual" being used kinda interchangeably with "easy" - the object/subject/whatever of the virtual itself may or may not be easy, but that doesn't mean accessing/hiking to the virtual is easy. Some in my neck of the woods are 5+ miles one way!

Just throwing that into the mix, hate to seem them all classified as "easy" when there are different levels of all caches.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

 

CloneZone, you have presented a good argument in favour of virtual caches. How would you feel if they were listed and kept track of entirely separately from physical caches (like Benchmarks) and were then pro-actively encouraged by the admin?


 

Seneca,

 

I see that as an alternative, if it needs to come to that. But then you just as well dump off multi's, locationless, etc. into their own separate "place" as well. Personally, (at least so far) I enjoy all of these equally well, if they are well thought out. I would enjoy a good hunt, regardless of what's at the end of the hunt. The more unique, the better.

 

quote:
Originally posted by enfanta:

 

Virtuals aren't hidden: they're quite public, rarely a challenge, involve a test and are usually something I never stopped to look at for a reason.


 

Enfanta, I can understand your frustration with lame virtuals, but I think you paint with too broad of a brush, and I think over time there have been plenty of examples of good virtuals posted to these forums. Is it really that important to you to find a box at the end of the hunt, or do you enjoy the hunt more? I'm not against not approving lame virtuals, but if we go that route, let's get a little more selective in approving ALL types of caches.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bo Peep & The Sheep:

No, I am saying that making caches accessable to the mobility disabled is a GOOD idea, and unfortunately the majority of HIKING caches exclude the mobility challenged.


I agree that more caches should be handicapped accessible.

quote:

Sure I can see http://www.geocaching.com wanting a physical cache if feasable, but if that requires bushwacking, climbing, or even just rough ground, then a significant portion of the populace is excluded, UNLESS the allowance of accessable caches is continued.


I have young children, so I agree that high terrain ratings exclude many cachers, not just the handicapped.

quote:
Virtuals are not MADE to be handicap friendly, but many of them ARE.

quote:
Originally posted my MountainMudbug:

I see the term "virtual" being used kinda interchangeably with "easy" - the object/subject/whatever of the virtual itself may or may not be easy, but that doesn't mean accessing/hiking to the virtual is easy. Some in my neck of the woods are 5+ miles one way!

Just throwing that into the mix, hate to seem them all classified as "easy" when there are different levels of all caches.


Good point, Mountain Mudbug. None of the caches I have found required a 5 mile hike. Out of the 10 caches I have active, eight of them are nearly handicapped-accessible. There are different types of handicaps, so I can't say that they are accessible, only nearly. Only two of my caches are off-trail. All of them are kid-friendly

quote:
I feel it is ONE reason not to discourage the creation, or ban them outright. (you can change the NAME, and allow people to filter them out, but do not delete them)

Rumor has it that TPTB are working on this issue right now. It looks like it will be a few more months, but they will probably have their own section, like benchmarks are now. Stay tuned.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

<SNIP>

quote:
I feel it is ONE reason not to discourage the creation, or ban them outright. (you can change the NAME, and allow people to filter them out, but do not delete them)

Rumor has it that TPTB are working on this issue right now. It looks like it will be a few more months, but they will probably have their own section, like benchmarks are now. Stay tuned.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness


 

Not a few months, SEVERAL months, as in no time soon.

 

I work for the QOFE that works for the Frog

tongue.gif The Frog is my friend big_smile.gif

Link to comment

see my thread under gc.com discussion, I am not happy with the state of virtuals being denied after my perspective being altered due to an unexpected knee injury. It wasn't my perspective on virtuals, however, it was how I viewed the need for handicap accessibility.

Link to comment

Virtual Rules Too Strict

 

I concur with the proponents of this issue. Geocaching is in its infancy, and I have enjoyed the times when someone didn’t see the need to deny caches that are in the spirit of how we came to know the sport. We personally like to see the historic spots without digging for a box full of toys. Geocachers feel as if this is our sport but it isn’t under the name of “GEOCACHING.COM”. Some one else that owns the servers does and they may do as they wish. I didn’t like Virtuals when I first started Geocaching but I have learned to see their place, and enjoy them better today. I recently tried to place a cache at a Fish hatchery that got denied because the Admin's felt a offset cache could be place a few hundred feet or even a mile away from what the cache is about. I asked if I could place a traditional cache on the site and the Fish and Game said no because they worry about people mulling around could be poaching. It seems hypercritical to make the placement so strict on the “verts” yet allow all the others to flourish. If you don’t like virtuals then you don’t need to hunt them. I have heard people that don’t like them say they get in the way when they look at nearby cache lists, then I don’t know why the web site doesn’t have a filter you can apply to separate the caches you are looking for and those that do not. If the problem is saturation then why don’t the admin’s limit those areas not punish the country folks. Perhaps the admin’s could trade for old virtual sites that don’t meet the criteria that could be turned traditional caches. Or a system in which you are the judge on how interesting this cache was could be implemented. If a site gets too many low scores then it could be subject to review.

 

Why Virtual sites are good

 

They are environmentally friendly or green.

They don’t waste time & gas when a cache is reported MIA and it isn’t to check it out.

The don’t get stolen or plundered.

They don’t get damaged or covered by weather.

Many of them are accessible to the disabled.

They add to the variety of Geocaching.

Often they give a history lesson for all.

Many have a view giving a geological or geographical education.

They teach children not all of life is material.

They are easily maintained.

Link to comment

First they came for locationless, but I wasn’t a locationless cacher, so I said nothing. Then they came for the virtuals, but I didn’t do many of them, so I said nothing, then they came for the webcams and the event caches and the cito caches. I didn’t do them either so I said nothing. Then they came for the “discriminatory” caches. You know the ones with puzzles to solve that discriminate against cachers that were mathematically or otherwise challenged. I never was very smart so I didn’t do that kind either. I let that one pass too. Lastly they came for the cute little gerbil caches they oh so recently told us we could have. I never kidnapped rodents and put them in a box, hoping someone would come and feed them, so I said nothing. Department of Homeland Security didn’t like ammo cans so those were outlawed. The resulting demand for Tupperware was so great the price rose 1000% so only the rich can afford to plant a cache.

But hey, the last 3 caches that exist are at least 100% eco friendly, 100% politically correct and 100% safe. Admin workload is down and there is nothing left to debate on the forums. Groundspeak is now a stressfree and happy place for all!

 

 

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Why Virtual sites are good

 

They are environmentally friendly or green.

They don’t waste time & gas when a cache is reported MIA and it isn’t to check it out.

The don’t get stolen or plundered.

They don’t get damaged or covered by weather.

Many of them are accessible to the disabled.

They add to the variety of Geocaching.

Often they give a history lesson for all.

Many have a view giving a geological or geographical education.

They teach children not all of life is material.

They are easily maintained.


 

Very well put... thank you very much! I liked Isha's comment as well, but the admin might not see the truth in it...if they get it at all...

 

Not all who wander are lost

Link to comment

quote:
All but one of the virutals was placed by a premium or charter member. Being somewhat new, we have not joined as premium members yet, but now I'm beginning to wonder if we HAD been premium members when we submitted this virtual cache if it would have been approved.

 

No, it wouldn't make a difference. Premium/Charter members have their virts denied all the time. You're probably seeing virts that were placed before the rules were tightened.

 

quote:
So, who are these mysterious approvers anyway? Anybody knows anything about them?

 

They are not mysterious. They are geocachers who volunteer their time to support this sport.

 

quote:
Why Virtual sites are good

 

They are environmentally friendly or green.

They don’t waste time & gas when a cache is reported MIA and it isn’t to check it out.

The don’t get stolen or plundered.

They don’t get damaged or covered by weather.

Many of them are accessible to the disabled.

They add to the variety of Geocaching.

Often they give a history lesson for all.

Many have a view giving a geological or geographical education.

They teach children not all of life is material.

They are easily maintained.


 

These are not aboslutes. As far as environmental friendleness, I've seen areas around virtuals trampled. A person looking for a marker in the woods will cause as much damage as someone looking for a cache. The plants don't know the difference.

 

Virtuals do go MIA. They have been obliterated by construction, damaged in accidents, relocated, or placed in areas that became off limits to the public. In some cases they can be susceptible to damage from weather (ever see what the weather does to a gravestone? One freeze/thaw cycle can turn an old stone to rubble).

 

As far as the other points, other than ease of maintenance, the rest are also true for traditional caches.

 

"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:

They are not mysterious. They are geocachers who volunteer their time to support this sport.


 

Or kill it with thier lack of interest in the evolving game geocachers wish to play. I remember reading in the history of geocaching there was a line...something about how fun an evolving this sport was. It doesn't evolve these days, not like it could a year or two ago.

 

quote:

As far as the other points, other than ease of maintenance, the rest are also true for traditional caches.


 

The rest are only true if the cache meets the ultimate guidelines for the standard ordinary traditional cache.

 

As stated before, many locations do not want traditional caches in there because of potential damage. Off site caches don't get people out to areas you want them to see, or if they do they get them to fly by the area only to get to the final cache location.

 

Geocaching was more than getting the box and signing a log, it was about a good healthy adventure and seeing places you'd never have seen without having looked up that coordinate and searching for it.

 

What really bothers me is when someone tries to plant a cache in an area, virtual/traditional/micro or otherwise and then the admins reject it because it may not fit into the existing rules they have even if the area geocachers would benefit from the cache and it was non destructive.

 

I don't think virtuals are the only problem here, I myself have had recently an 11 stage multi over 30 km (caches placed) rejected, and there was no existing caches showing off many of the areas I featured (Note these were not virtuals, they were on public land, they used codes to gather final coordinates...)

 

I've also had many more issues or been discussing with other cachers in our area the number of caches that have been refussed, yet everyone liked the caches.

 

As a result I finished just this past weekend archiving all but one of my caches (because its a group shared cache) and have hence decided no longer to support geocaching with caches.

 

The unfortunate thing is the area geocachers seemed to enjoy all oh my caches and they all saw weekly visits. I for one will be looking into alternate "listing services" as its been put to maintian my freedom to evolve in this sport.

 

Keith.

 

Bear & Ducky

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...