Virtual cache blocking a traditional? Why?

July 27, 2003

I have read many threads referring to virtuals not approved "because it prevents a traditional cache to be placed in 0.1 mile radius from the virtual".

I don't quite understand what is the problem here: the 0.1 mile rule was introduced to prevent "cache saturation" or accidentaly finding a cache when looking for a nearby one. That's fine for traditional caches, but how could virtual and traditional block each other, even if placed exactly at the same place? If you would hunt for the virtual, you would read a plaque, take a picture of yourself with the GPS, count the windows on the building or whatever the owner requires you to prove the visit. If hunting for the micro, you would find it and sign the logbook. These are two quite different actions, not much chance to make a mistake.

I'm not a big fan of virtuals but in some cases I would prefer them over urban micros. It would seem to me more logical to modify that rule to prohibit "caches of the same type (trad/virt) placed within 0.1mi radius of the existing cache". What do you think?

Czech caching in US.

38.2k · July 27, 2003

I think it would be silly to have a virtual and a real cache in the same spot.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

9.2k · July 27, 2003

I would be in favor of raising the radius limit on virtuals to, oh, 100 miles or so.

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

3k · July 27, 2003

the .1 is just a number but the thing is that if you have a cache at location X that takes up the area of .1 all the way around it. So if you submit a cache that is near there or closer I will see that its less than .1 from the virt and your trad doesn't get approved.

I rather see trads than virts. People just don't want to put the effort into placing a cache and go with the virt option instead.

__________________________

Caching without a clue....

July 27, 2003

but a really cool virtual can be.. really cool too. I think the approvers need to be told what the virtual object or site is to make a judgement on how unique it is.

The Department of Redundancy Department

A geocache a day keeps the debtors away (cause your never home to take the call...)

July 28, 2003

But there's the problem. Your definition of really cool may be 180 degrees from mine.

For example, you may view skydiving as an exciting, adrenaline pumping activity. I may view it as suicidal nut cases jumping out of perfectly good aircraft. You may view a monument to skydivers who died while participating in their hobby as a fitting tribute and really cool. I may view it as proof that Darwin was right.

Now where did I park my car???????

2.1k · July 28, 2003

I agree with you Haggaeus and Runaround. I've often thought this before and believe I have mentioned it. My feeling is that you could easily miss a lot of things when going after a traditional and not see many virtuals that could educate you. I imagine I've missed some markers, statues, and etc trying to find a traditional. I have no problem with the virtuals being voided of the rule you mentioned. But everyone has their opinion. Some don't like virtuals, I've never done one myself yet. Some don't like multis or micros.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

July 28, 2003

I don't like seeing microcaches placed at a site that could be a very interesting virtual cache. If there is an interesting historical sign or plaque at the location, chances are that someone looking for a microcache won't even stop to read it. Hiding a microcache there could also result in damage to the object from people climbing all over it looking for the microcache, and any landscaping around the object would probably be trampled dead in no time flat. Sometimes virtual caches are preferable to microcaches, even if a microcache could be easily hidden there. I say keep virtual caches and don't approve any more unnecessary microcaches.

2.7k · July 28, 2003

I just can't understand why some think a virtual could block a traditional. This Cache a virtual with several places to visit starts out in a certain park. And very recently this traditional Cache was created. Now they both start real close to each other but wind up miles apart; and its final location is very close to this one and shares waypoints with this one and this one and crosses paths with this one and they coexist and create a real nice bunch of caches.

For all to enjoy!!

Tahosa - Dweller of Mountain Tops.

July 28, 2003

I think all the different sorts of caches provide different strokes for different folks. I do not think any one is better than another, tho I have my preferences too.

Virtuals also allow travellers (like me) to enter caches where traditional caches could not be maintained. It's a big world. There are lots of fun things to mark virtually as well as with the varieties of traditional caches. So why not proliferate the opportunities for fun and discovery.

I am looking forward to doing more benchmarking. Even finding survey markers seems fun to me.

PastorCacher

9.4k · July 28, 2003

Virtuals have their place. It's called www.waypoint.org

A cache is, by definition, a hiding place for storing items. It is NOT a location that is interesting.

quote:
Definitions of CACHE from www.dictionary.com

A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.

A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables.

A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

If there is an interesting site that you want people to see, make it part of a multicache. In order to require people to at least read your interesting marker, make them answer a question by using the information on it. You can't force them to learn about or respect the same things as you. (See Runaround's reply for an excellent analogy)

According to the Geocaching guidelines, virtuals should only be posted if there is no way to maintain a physical cache there. I've seen some pretty poor excuses. Most virtuals that I've visited could support a real cache within easy walking distance.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

24.7k · July 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Haggaeus:
...It would seem to me more logical to modify that rule to prohibit "caches of the same type (trad/virt) placed within 0.1mi radius of the existing cache". What do you think?

Czech caching in US.

Locationless and Benchamarks, and Traditionals can all overlap and the world doesn't end.

Locationless, Benchmarks, and VC's can overlap and the world doesn't end.

At first take I was with you on this one but:

If a VC is for use when a Traditinal isn't appropriate for some reason. Then the VC is a special case of the tradional and has a place in NPS lands, or Sensitive areas that are worth seeing but are too sensitive for a traditional cache, or when say a radical group threatens to steal your legitimate cache if if should ever be found on their turf.

If the VC is a special case of a traditional then it's entirely appropriate for the VC to 'block' the Traditional.

2.1k · July 28, 2003

In regards to Team GPSaxophone's comment on the virtual caches belonging on the other website, I must make a comment that if that is the case then one would think that Geocaching.com would not allow Virtuals at all. Would be just the same as saying that the letterbox hybrids don't belong in caches either as their is a place for that the letterboxing site (I don't letterbox).

I think virtuals offer you the chance to see things that you may not see while going to a nearby traditional. Now with the way that the site holds your states, there are not a total amount(except on the cache pages) that you found. They are now broken down.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

July 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
Virtuals have their place. It's called http://www.waypoint.org

A cache is, by definition, a hiding place for storing items. It is NOT a location that is interesting.

<Shrug> In the case of a virtual, the item being stored is knowledge. If I'm being asked to stop at a wide spot in the road to hunt a cache, I'd much rather there be something interesting about the spot, such as an informational sign, rather than just a tree big enough to hide a box.

Now, if there's both a sign and a box, that's great, too. But a virtual is not automatically less interesting than a traditional cache for me.

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

2.6k · July 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox:
I don't like seeing microcaches placed at a site that could be a very interesting virtual cache. If there is an interesting historical sign or plaque at the location, chances are that someone looking for a microcache won't even stop to read it. I say keep virtual caches and don't approve any more unnecessary microcaches.

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I don't care if others like Virts. Too suggest that a traditional cache shouldn't be placed where a Interesting Virtual should be is absurd! Yes a micro is a traditional cache.

When you provide a cache for others you should be appealing to the majority. A micro certainly provides 100% more than a Virtual can. I don't expect others to share my expectations of a cache. I'm interested in the hunt first. Followed by location. Others will have very different interests.

A Virtual can not meet my first criteria. It's not a real hunt. A micro is, and can be very challenging. You can't force everyone to find interest in your historical location. So your point is frivolous. I'm not alone in the hunting issue either.

I have two virts in my count and would be happy to delete them if we could move them to another site. I was very disappointed with them. Nothing truly interesting. I would have enjoyed a good search.

Pepper playing nice!

Mokita!

2.1k · July 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:

_That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard._

I don't care if others like Virts. Too suggest that a traditional cache shouldn't be placed where a Interesting Virtual should be is absurd! Yes a micro is a traditional cache.

If there's a way to place a traditional where a virtual is, I can see the fact that a traditional out rules a virtual. But if it's not right there or along the way of the hunt and not noticed, then I see no problem wit a virtual being voided from the .10 mile limit.

quote:
_When you provide a cache for others you should be appealing to the majority._ A micro certainly provides 100% more than a Virtual can. I don't expect others to share my expectations of a cache. I'm interested in the hunt first. Followed by location. Others will have very different interests.

_A Virtual can not meet my first criteria. It's not a real hunt. A micro is, and can be very challenging._ You can't force everyone to find interest in your historical location. So your point is frivolous. I'm not alone in the hunting issue either.

_I have two virts in my count and would be happy to delete them if we could move them to another site._ I was very disappointed with them. Nothing truly interesting. I would have enjoyed a good search.

Why worry about a virtual in your stats? It's not like it used to be where all the types were added up to a total amount. You can probably go back and delete your finds for those virts and remove them. And if they weren't really interesting to you in the first place , then I wouldn't of logged them. Remeber like you stated, not everyone is going to have the same opinion. I'm sure there are many who like virts and the one virt in your stats hasa lot of log entries, and the few that I read where very good responses.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

2.6k · July 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
If there's a way to place a traditional where a virtual is, I can see the fact that a traditional out rules a virtual. But if it's not right there or along the way of the hunt and not noticed, then I see no problem wit a virtual being voided from the .10 mile limit.

Did you read the post by the moron I was responding to? The suggestion was that a traditional micro cache should NOT be allowed where an interesting virtual could be. Which is ironic, because there is no such thing as an interesting virtual. I didn't say anything about distance.

As for the cache count. I said I was willing to lower my count to get rid of virtuals.

Are you dyslexic? You didn't even rebut what I posted. Way off on a tangent. Quoting me and responding to other posts.

Pepper playing nice!

Mokita!

July 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:
_That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard._

I don't care if others like Virts. Too suggest that a traditional cache shouldn't be placed where a Interesting Virtual should be is absurd! Yes a micro is a traditional cache.

Geocaching isn't all about you and your likes and petty dislikes, leatherman. You conveniently forgot to address this point I made:

quote:
Hiding a microcache there could also result in damage to the object from people climbing all over it looking for the microcache, and any landscaping around the object would probably be trampled dead in no time flat. Sometimes virtual caches are preferable to microcaches, even if a microcache could be easily hidden there.

I've seen stone walls torn apart by people looking for microcaches. I've seen newly planted saplings torn from the ground by people looking for microcaches. I've seen flower gardens completely trampled by people looking for microcaches. Sometimes a virtual cache is preferable to a microcache; if you can't understand that, then you are probably a large part of the problem.

2.6k · July 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox:
I've seen stone walls torn apart by people looking for microcaches. I've seen newly planted saplings torn from the ground by people looking for microcaches. I've seen flower gardens completely trampled by people looking for microcaches. Sometimes a virtual cache is preferable to a microcache; if you can't understand that, then you are probably a large part of the problem.

Well that part of your weak argument didn't deserve a rebuttal.

The only acceptable reason for a virtual is as a stage in a multi cache, or in a location where a traditional is forbidden.

An intelligent person would use a virtual stage of a multi where the location is sensitive.

Your pathetic argument suggests that all traditional caches are destructive.

Pepper playing nice!

Mokita!

2.1k · July 29, 2003

Leatherman I was commenting on the point that you stated that you would be happy to delete them if they were moved to another site. My remark was that i'm sure you can. If they were disappointing to you, then by all means remove them.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

2.6k · July 29, 2003

MOSH

Pepper playing nice!

Mokita!

July 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
Virtuals have their place. It's called http://www.waypoint.org

A cache is, by definition, a hiding place for storing items. It is NOT a location that is interesting.

Definitions of CACHE from http://www.dictionary.com
+ A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.

+ A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables.

+ A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

I trust you would never stoop to logging those "event caches then?

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

Virtual cache blocking a traditional? Why?

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

Join the conversation