Should we allow virtual caches that you can find the answer to without leaving your computer?

March 24, 2002

Greetings friends,

I found two virtual caches today without even leaving my computer.

Should we allow virtual caches that are so easy you can find the answers just by conducting a search at www.google.com?

I thought virtual caches had to be places that you actually had to go to, but that you could log a find by retrieving some information that could only be found at the location.

Just asking,

- Peanuthead

March 24, 2002

No, we should not. You should have to go out and find something. I have seen a few like this. I sighed, shook my head, and passed them up never to return.

rdw

3.5k · March 24, 2002

I can't imagine one like that, that would fit the game.

March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by rdw:
No, we should not. You should have to go out and find something. I have seen a few like this. I sighed, shook my head, and passed them up never to return.

rdw

Ditto

March 24, 2002

Nope. Where's the joy in that. Not my idea of a Geocache. More like an open-book test in school. Total "No Brainer". Oh well, someone thought it was a good idea and approved it, so...we continue to just do the caches that appeal to our own sense of caching.

March 24, 2002

Nope. Where's the joy in that. Not my idea of a Geocache. More like an open-book test in school. Total "No Brainer". Oh well, someone thought it was a good idea and approved it, so...we continue to just do the caches that appeal to our own sense of caching.

1.1k · March 24, 2002

At the very least, I think a virtual cache should require you to get out and take a picture of your find, and to post the coordinates.

If a geocache doesn't require you to use your GPSr to find it, it should at least allow others to use theirs to go see first hand what you logged.

March 24, 2002

Absolutely not. The whole idea of geocaching is that you have to GO THERE and FIND THE PLACE. Other than jacking up a "find count", what pleasure could there possibly be in logging a "find" with general knowledge?

"The One Dollar Bill Virtual Cache" ... log it by telling the "placer" whose picture is on a one dollar bill.

=================================

Interested in Geocaching in the state of Georgia? Visit the Georgia Geocachers Association at http://www.ggaonline.org

3k · March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:
At the _very_ least, I think a virtual cache should require you to get out and take a picture of your find, and to post the coordinates.

To require a photo would be discriminatory against those folks who don't own a digital camera or scanner.

There have been a couple of caches where one doesn't necessarily have to leave the computer that have been fun and worthwhile . . . Crusso's "Where's in a Name" cache was one, and the Radio KAOS virtual was another. I participated in both of those, and if someone had contacted me with matching coordinates for Crusso's cache, I would have gladly gone out to find a matching location and provided the photos.

If the point of the virtual is to bring geocachers to a specific place, however, I tend to agree that an actual, physical visit should be required at the site. But it's up to the cache owner to state that in the description and enforce it.

2.7k · March 24, 2002

Let the folks that own the cache know that the info can be found by a simple internet search. I have a virtual cache and I did a search for the info enscribed on the cache and came up with nothing. But the approver told me of how he was able to find the answer by searching. So I changed what was needed to clame the cache, now everything is fine.

BTW: The take picture idea is great however you get people who have reservations for buying hundereds of dollars of GPS equipment but are too cheap to buy a camera.

- Lone Rangers

March 24, 2002

How about this..

There is a virtual in the KC area that requires you to go to the Steamboat Arabia museuem, the password for the certificate is on a painting that can be seen from outside the building in case you are thee when the museuem is closed. Anyways I was there twice last year and went thru the tour both times, I recently logged it as a find but couldnt remember the password, a little internet search to jog my memory and its a done deal. I saw nothing wrong with that because I was actually there, and the museuem is a must see exhibit.

It would be possible to log it without even going there but I think that only cheats the finder from seeing a really neat museuem, its like a storehouse of artifacts from the 1850's

C-Troop

March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
If the point of the virtual is to bring geocachers to a specific place, however, I tend to agree that an actual, physical visit should be required at the site. But it's up to the cache owner to state that in the description and enforce it.

The point of EVERY cache is (or should be IMO) to bring the geocacher to a specific place. The geocaching.com FAQ page defines a virtual cache as follows:

"Virtual caches - A cache is actually an existing landmark, such as a tombstone or statue. You have to answer a question from the landmark and let the "cache" owner know as proof that you were there."

The whole point of the cache is to go to the location. Finding the answer to the question is secondary and is intended only as "proof that you were there."

3k · March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Geo Leo:

The point of EVERY cache is (or should be IMO) to bring the geocacher to a specific place. The geocaching.com FAQ page defines a virtual cache as follows:

"Virtual caches - A cache is actually an existing landmark, such as a tombstone or statue. You have to answer a question from the landmark and let the "cache" owner know as proof that you were there."

Well, there's a perfect example of how things evolve over time. The passage from the FAQ you quoted describes virtual caches as they were originally conceived. Since that time, people have found some pretty creative ways to "place" virtual caches.

These types of caches have been routinely approved by "the staff," therefore these types of caches have been deemed valid, even if they are outside of the standard definition.

2.7k · March 24, 2002

Yes we should allow these kinds of Caches because there are some homebound people, who for some unfortunate reason can not go and search like some of us. For those of you who have said NO, I ask you one question. How many of you have caches that are labeled WHEELCHAIR ACCESIBLE?

The "Bushwhacker"

2.7k · March 24, 2002

Yes we should allow these kinds of Caches because there are some homebound people, who for some unfortunate reason can not go and search like some of us. For those of you who have said NO, I ask you one question. How many of you have caches that are labeled WHEELCHAIR ACCESIBLE?

The "Bushwhacker"

1.1k · March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
To _require_ a photo would be discriminatory against those folks who don't own a digital camera or scanner.

Not necessarily. It's not all that expensive to have pictures scanned at K-mart, RiteAid, Kinkos, etc.

And if it is discriminatory, could the same be true for setting up a cache which requires the use of a GPSr to find it?

1.1k · March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
To _require_ a photo would be discriminatory against those folks who don't own a digital camera or scanner.

Not necessarily. It's not all that expensive to have pictures scanned at K-mart, RiteAid, Kinkos, etc.

And if it is discriminatory, could the same be true for setting up a cache which requires the use of a GPSr to find it?

March 24, 2002

Nope, it's not a geocache, but a googlecache.

The point of GEO-caching is that you have to go somewhere based on clues (usually a set of coordinates ... and not simply naming a landmark) provided by a hider. Navigation to an unknown location is a defining feature of the game.

Virtual caches are OK (although I'm personally not interested in them) but sitting at a computer is not geocaching.

After all, how many cachers have said that the reason they like this pasttime is that it gets them and their kids out of the house?

I vote NO ... vehemently.

the tapir

March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BigDoggie:
"The One Dollar Bill Virtual Cache" ... log it by telling the "placer" whose picture is on a one dollar bill.

Um... where is that one? I can't find it in the listings???

> Martin (Magellan 330)

Don't have time to program and record your shows while geocaching? Get a TiVo!

March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BigDoggie:
"The One Dollar Bill Virtual Cache" ... log it by telling the "placer" whose picture is on a one dollar bill.

Um... where is that one? I can't find it in the listings???

> Martin (Magellan 330)

Don't have time to program and record your shows while geocaching? Get a TiVo!

March 24, 2002

I think the key is striking an equitable balance between the physical and mental challenge. Going to a particular location to find something is an inherent part of the activity, whether it's to obtain information or participate in an exchange. As for accessibility, I believe that virtual caches offer the greatest opportunity for sites with a terrain rating suitable for handicapped individuals; however, I've seen far too many "normal" caches that had a terrain rating of 1 that were not at all accessible but, this is another subject...

[This message was edited by Gaiter Man on March 24, 2002 at 01:43 PM.]

March 24, 2002

I think the key is striking an equitable balance between the physical and mental challenge. Going to a particular location to find something is an inherent part of the activity, whether it's to obtain information or participate in an exchange. As for accessibility, I believe that virtual caches offer the greatest opportunity for sites with a terrain rating suitable for handicapped individuals; however, I've seen far too many "normal" caches that had a terrain rating of 1 that were not at all accessible but, this is another subject...

[This message was edited by Gaiter Man on March 24, 2002 at 01:43 PM.]

2.7k · March 24, 2002

I bet I can log just about any find that I want and not actually visit the cache (including traditional caches). How many of you actually visit your caches and compare the physical cache log to its online cache log?

Its not the type of cache we should be worry about its the honesty of cache finder we should be wary of.

On another topic. Some developers will put your photos on CD for only a little extra and a few online photo printers will develope and email your pictures to you (if you want prints thats extra . )

- Lone Rangers

2.7k · March 24, 2002

I bet I can log just about any find that I want and not actually visit the cache (including traditional caches). How many of you actually visit your caches and compare the physical cache log to its online cache log?

Its not the type of cache we should be worry about its the honesty of cache finder we should be wary of.

On another topic. Some developers will put your photos on CD for only a little extra and a few online photo printers will develope and email your pictures to you (if you want prints thats extra . )

- Lone Rangers

March 24, 2002

If you find out where a cache is and decide not to get your self up and out to the actual location then who is not getting the most out of the game.

Also, if you report a FIND without actualy going to the place, then what does that say about you?

I have been to a few virtual caches where I knew before hand where the virtual cache was and even what informatin the person who posted it was looking for. But I went.

The fun for me is the journey, not the ends.

Of course others have other reasons for playing. Some are into the game simply to rack up numbers, some are in it for bragging rights, others for the prizes.

Whatever your reason, please dont piss on those who are into it for the jounrey, for the fun of getting out and going places. That would not be a good thing.

-tom

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

TeamWSMF@wsmf.org

March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by TeamWSMF:

I have been to a few virtual caches where I knew before hand where the virtual cache was and even what informatin the person who posted it was looking for. But I went.

The fun for me is the journey, not the ends.

-tom

Well put.

I also went to one virtual even though I knew where it was (Whisky Galore ... very cool site, BTW)

I didn't log it, because it just didn't seem appropriate, since I knew what it was beforehand.

It was fun watching the E/W coords get down to 000:00.000, though.

Oh dear ... that last sentence makes me realise what a total geek I am ....

the tapir

March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by TeamWSMF:

I have been to a few virtual caches where I knew before hand where the virtual cache was and even what informatin the person who posted it was looking for. But I went.

The fun for me is the journey, not the ends.

-tom

Well put.

I also went to one virtual even though I knew where it was (Whisky Galore ... very cool site, BTW)

I didn't log it, because it just didn't seem appropriate, since I knew what it was beforehand.

It was fun watching the E/W coords get down to 000:00.000, though.

Oh dear ... that last sentence makes me realise what a total geek I am ....

the tapir

3k · March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

And if it _is_ discriminatory, could the same be true for setting up a cache which __requires__ the use of a GPSr to find it?

One is a "given" of the sport, one is not. You decide.

3k · March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

And if it _is_ discriminatory, could the same be true for setting up a cache which __requires__ the use of a GPSr to find it?

One is a "given" of the sport, one is not. You decide.

March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
To _require_ a photo would be discriminatory against those folks who don't own a digital camera or scanner.

Not necessarily. It's not all that expensive to have pictures scanned at K-mart, RiteAid, Kinkos, etc.

And if it _is_ discriminatory, could the same be true for setting up a cache which __requires__ the use of a GPSr to find it?

I gotta be honest with you, I dont have a digital..or any other type of camera, nor do I have any intention of buying one. If a cache has an absolute requirement for a "picture" of me there to prove my physical attendance, guess I wont be logging a find. I try to carry as little as possible when I hike, espescially anything as gratuitous as a camera. If something I see is so breath taking that I wasnt to remember the image of it, I simply do that...I REMEMBER the image. So, sorry if I'm not in with the cool crowd on this one, but the camera thing simply isnt for me. As far the topic...yes, I think a visit should be required for logging a find...but I think that the burden of proof should be decided by the cache placer.

March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
To _require_ a photo would be discriminatory against those folks who don't own a digital camera or scanner.

Not necessarily. It's not all that expensive to have pictures scanned at K-mart, RiteAid, Kinkos, etc.

And if it _is_ discriminatory, could the same be true for setting up a cache which __requires__ the use of a GPSr to find it?

I gotta be honest with you, I dont have a digital..or any other type of camera, nor do I have any intention of buying one. If a cache has an absolute requirement for a "picture" of me there to prove my physical attendance, guess I wont be logging a find. I try to carry as little as possible when I hike, espescially anything as gratuitous as a camera. If something I see is so breath taking that I wasnt to remember the image of it, I simply do that...I REMEMBER the image. So, sorry if I'm not in with the cool crowd on this one, but the camera thing simply isnt for me. As far the topic...yes, I think a visit should be required for logging a find...but I think that the burden of proof should be decided by the cache placer.

March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Bushwhacker:
Yes we should allow these kinds of Caches because there are some homebound people, who for some unfortunate reason can not go and search like some of us. For those of you who have said NO, I ask you one question. How many of you have caches that are labeled WHEELCHAIR ACCESIBLE?

The "Bushwhacker"

No, we should not. You should have to go out and find something. I have seen a few like this. I sighed, shook my head, and passed them up never to return.

rdw

Funny thing is I agree with both of them.

Personally, I do this because it's fun. My wife is actually enjoying this also. Some people are unable to reach the caches I have visited. Even the 1/1 sites. If they do it another way, no problem. Others who are able should be going out to visit. If they don't, no skin off my nose. I am not in competition for points. If there was a competition I would probably lose anyway.

inceptor

the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys

March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Bushwhacker:
Yes we should allow these kinds of Caches because there are some homebound people, who for some unfortunate reason can not go and search like some of us. For those of you who have said NO, I ask you one question. How many of you have caches that are labeled WHEELCHAIR ACCESIBLE?

The "Bushwhacker"

No, we should not. You should have to go out and find something. I have seen a few like this. I sighed, shook my head, and passed them up never to return.

rdw

Funny thing is I agree with both of them.

Personally, I do this because it's fun. My wife is actually enjoying this also. Some people are unable to reach the caches I have visited. Even the 1/1 sites. If they do it another way, no problem. Others who are able should be going out to visit. If they don't, no skin off my nose. I am not in competition for points. If there was a competition I would probably lose anyway.

inceptor

the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys

5k · March 24, 2002

You know, four days ago, I would have said that if a cache can be logged without actually being visited, it shouldn't be allowed.

A personal experience has made me doubt my original thoughts. There is a mult-cache nearby where the first cache sends you to a second location to get a numerical clue in order to decrypt the coordinates to the final location. Well... I devised a way to figure out that numerical clue mathematically, rather than finding it physically... and I would have been completely comfortable with myself if I'd never went to that second location. As it turns out, I never could figure out the solution to the equation I created, although a solution (the unknown numerical clue) exists. I'll be forced to visit the location anyway.

But my point is that if a cacher feels comfortable with himself for logging a find when he didn't actually visit the site... well then, I guess it's up to him. Although in most circumstances, I would not do so.

It does point out sloppy planning by some virtual cache placers though. It think it ought to be mentioned to them (via email) that the the "secret" can be found online or elsewhere. I emailed my solution to the owner of my aforementioned cache. He thought it was an intriguing idea, and has made the decision not to change the set-up. In fact, he thought anyone who would try it was rather clever.

Jamie

5k · March 24, 2002

You know, four days ago, I would have said that if a cache can be logged without actually being visited, it shouldn't be allowed.

A personal experience has made me doubt my original thoughts. There is a mult-cache nearby where the first cache sends you to a second location to get a numerical clue in order to decrypt the coordinates to the final location. Well... I devised a way to figure out that numerical clue mathematically, rather than finding it physically... and I would have been completely comfortable with myself if I'd never went to that second location. As it turns out, I never could figure out the solution to the equation I created, although a solution (the unknown numerical clue) exists. I'll be forced to visit the location anyway.

But my point is that if a cacher feels comfortable with himself for logging a find when he didn't actually visit the site... well then, I guess it's up to him. Although in most circumstances, I would not do so.

It does point out sloppy planning by some virtual cache placers though. It think it ought to be mentioned to them (via email) that the the "secret" can be found online or elsewhere. I emailed my solution to the owner of my aforementioned cache. He thought it was an intriguing idea, and has made the decision not to change the set-up. In fact, he thought anyone who would try it was rather clever.

Jamie

March 24, 2002

I notice most of this topic is going after the cache seekers that are willing to log a find without leaving their home. I saw these caches mentioned in the original post and I'd focus more on who placed these caches or similar caches. I also quickly found the answer online through Google. It's not that we found a way to avoid going out and finding the cache--the cache instructions stated to do a search on Google!

I don't care how somebody 'finds' a cache, or even if they log a cache they never really found. That's up to them. If they get artificially inflated numbers, others that care will know they're fake and just ignore or adjust them. At the same time, I am bothered by cache hiders that haven't actually been to a cache site. I don't know if the coordinates on the caches we mentioned were special points to the cache hider that are worth visiting (they're on the other side of the country from where I am,) but there are some other caches where it has bothered me that the cache hider made it obvious they never actually went to that location. The best example is the wonderful cache we went to today, finding the population center of the state. To me it seemed like the 'hider' should have at least gone to their own state center before creating this cache (I'm very glad they created the cache anyway since it proved to be so much fun today.)

So, now I've managed to annoy at least one cache hider and contradict myself at the same time...

March 24, 2002

Perhaps a new category? The CyberCache?

Just a thought . . .

March 24, 2002

I like the sound of that. That'd fix any complaints I'd have about caches like these. Then it'd be up to the cache hunters whether they felt comfortable counting that as a find. I'm sure there are plenty that would like use the find as credit for the learning experience of finding the info online.

March 24, 2002

Sorry to anyone who made these, but sitting on in front of your computer is not geocaching.

24.7k · March 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

To __require__ a photo would be discriminatory against those folks who don't own a digital camera or scanner.

If the point of the virtual is to bring geocachers to a specific place, however, I tend to agree that an actual, physical visit should be required at the site. But it's up to the cache owner to state that in the description and enforce it.

I agree that a virtual cache should be found by visiting the coordinates. Even if you find the answer to the question on your computer. I can find an ammo can in my garage that matches a lot of caches around these parts. It's not the same though.

On the other hand I really don't have a problem with a Cache that requires Scuba Gear (which I would not get) or a 4x4 (more my style), or a Camera (which I don't have) The more variety the better. Maybe I'll even pick up my next hobby from a special cache.

20.7k · March 25, 2002

I think I've found where to draw that line we keep hearing about.

Caching is about getting outside. If you don't have to get outside, it's not caching.

March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Bushwhacker:
Yes we should allow these kinds of Caches because there are some homebound people, who for some unfortunate reason can not go and search like some of us. For those of you who have said NO, I ask you one question. How many of you have caches that are labeled WHEELCHAIR ACCESIBLE?

Despite our egalitarian leanings these days, the truth remains that disabled people are... well... DIS-ABLED. As in NOT ABLE to do some things.

Blind people can't play baseball, not unless we modify the game so as to make it no longer really baseball. Deaf-mutes can rarely make a living in public speaking.

To sit at a computer and log a find based on a google search is NOT geocaching. It may be an entertaining diversion for a disabled person, but that person is NOT geocaching.

And, yes, the one cache that I have so far placed is clearly marked as being wheelchair-accessable to within 20' of the cache container. I thought that leaving the container out on the gravel path would make it JUST A BIT too obvious. But a wheelchair-bound person could enjoy finding the cache with family or friends.

=================================

Interested in Geocaching in the state of Georgia? Visit the Georgia Geocachers Association at http://www.ggaonline.org

March 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Bushwhacker:
Yes we should allow these kinds of Caches because there are some homebound people, who for some unfortunate reason can not go and search like some of us. For those of you who have said NO, I ask you one question. How many of you have caches that are labeled WHEELCHAIR ACCESIBLE?

Despite our egalitarian leanings these days, the truth remains that disabled people are... well... DIS-ABLED. As in NOT ABLE to do some things.

Blind people can't play baseball, not unless we modify the game so as to make it no longer really baseball. Deaf-mutes can rarely make a living in public speaking.

To sit at a computer and log a find based on a google search is NOT geocaching. It may be an entertaining diversion for a disabled person, but that person is NOT geocaching.

And, yes, the one cache that I have so far placed is clearly marked as being wheelchair-accessable to within 20' of the cache container. I thought that leaving the container out on the gravel path would make it JUST A BIT too obvious. But a wheelchair-bound person could enjoy finding the cache with family or friends.

=================================

Interested in Geocaching in the state of Georgia? Visit the Georgia Geocachers Association at http://www.ggaonline.org

1.4k · March 25, 2002

I do a Google search for the answers to my virtuals before I create them. I figure, if I can't find the answer online, then somebody else is at least going to have to work very hard to find it. Still, there are ways to cheat and find the answers. If I suspect someone didn't actually visit the location, I politely email them asking about it. If they still claim they actually did visit the coords, then I leave it. If they admit they didn't, I politely ask them to remove their "found" log or change it to a note. So far, I haven't had to take the step of deleting it myself.

March 27, 2002

Assuming that the person who "places" the virtual cache actually visited the site him/herself, it sould be easy enough to find some visual clue that would not be searchable.

=================================

Interested in Geocaching in the state of Georgia? Visit the Georgia Geocachers Association at http://www.ggaonline.org

Should we allow virtual caches that you can find the answer to without leaving your computer?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation