POLL on archived virtual

24.7k · September 11, 2003

I do virtuals and traditionals, and every now and then when things dry up a locationless.

A micro cache on the back of a sign for a "hiding place" sucks worse than answering a the question for a virtual cache. It's a waste of a perfectly good GC waypoint number.

Turning it into a multi cache also sucks. If you screw up one part you are skunked. Worse you are running all over a location that is probably boring if it werent for the marker indicating that something important did happen. Just not to you as you got skunked on the multi cache. Plus if you traveled to get there that just bites because you may never come back that way again. The other bad thing about a multi (having done VC's that would of been cool but were ruined by becoming a multi) is that the focus is on some number instead of the history that is being conveyed. In other words the focuse becomes the day they died and not why they lived.

To be blunt VC's have a place and attemptes to force fit a traditional where a VC is actually more appropriate is pounding a square peg into a round hole.

For the most part I'll take a traditional over a virtual any day. But everthing has it's time and place even if you can't stand the lack of a physical cache. Waypoint.org is not the same thing as a Virtual Cache by any stretch of the definition.

7.4k · September 11, 2003

Nevermind. Not worth it.

3.9k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:
Nevermind. Not worth it.

If it wasn't bed time...I would pick up where you left off...but as you stated..it's not worth it.

El Diablo

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

http://www.geo-hikingstick.com

2.1k · September 11, 2003

If you can filter your search to exclude virtuals (or pigeonhole them like locationless caches), then what exactly is the harm in accepting them and exempting them from the 0.1 mile rule as well?

Just curious, since some people like them, others don't...the others don't have to do them and the ones that do won't have to go to 3 different websites to find all the waypoints they'd like to consider on a single trip.

I can understand quality-of-cache issues (e.g. a fart-in-a-box cache would not be accepted) but why virtuals are somehow less acceptable (other than "because we said so") isn't quite clear.

7.2k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by woof & lulu:
"Virtuals" are old and overdone?

These roadside signs are part of our history, and some of us find them fascinating to read and/or visit.

On a day of rememberance that is an ironic statement.

That is quiet an ironic statement. The only way people will stop to read these is if they get a smiley for them. I live near Kennesaw Battlefield and have read many of the signs around the area. I didn't have to get a smiley to do it. I wanted to know the history of the area. I stopped. If your interested in these signs... stop.

One thing that is being floated at this time is that fewer than 0.001 percent of cachers are forum regulars (100 out of 100,000 cachers, I think it is more than 50 myself). One of the first things someone does when they are unhappy is come to the forums. Could it be possible that most of those cachers out there are happy with the way this web site is structured at this time?

According to the 50 forum regulars math, half of them have voted in the poll at this time. Of the 26 that have voted at this time, 88% of them think the cache should be turned down. Most of the people supporting virtual caches are fairly well passionate about it, so I would imagine most have voted. Another 99.999% of the other cachers don't care enough about it to find these forums (which are linked on every web page on this site) and vote in an anonymous poll.

2.1k · September 11, 2003

Has any of the approvers been to the spot where the virtual would be and verify that a regular cache could be placed there....legally?

Brian

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

1.4k · September 11, 2003

Jeff, I am a big enough person to admit that

Cool! That's why I like you You can have a mature 'heated' discussion and still agree to disagree with me Happy caching!

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

1.1k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
A micro cache on the back of a sign for a "hiding place" sucks worse than answering a the question for a virtual cache. It's a waste of a perfectly good GC waypoint number.

Turning it into a multi cache also sucks. If you screw up one part you are skunked. Worse you are running all over a location that is probably boring if it werent for the marker indicating that something important did happen. Just not to you as you got skunked on the multi cache. Plus if you traveled to get there that just bites because you may never come back that way again. The other bad thing about a multi (having done VC's that would of been cool but were ruined by becoming a multi) is that the focus is on some number instead of the history that is being conveyed. In other words the focuse becomes the day they died and not why they lived.

To be blunt VC's have a place and attemptes to force fit a traditional where a VC is actually more appropriate is pounding a square peg into a round hole.

I think Renegade Knight, you said it the best of all the posts on this topic. I would definately do this cache and be more inclined to do it as a quick virtual on a site seeing tour through Arizona/Nevada, as we have done. Spending and hour or 2 driving around for a multi just to be disappointed by a final micro that just has a log book (seemed to be lots of these in Arizona when I was there last month, and I tried to avoid these micro log only), is not my idea of fun.

To Team 360, I did 4 of your caches while in Arizona and enjoyed each one of them, but especially your Tortilla Flat chach, which was the best container I have ever seen in my 550 finds! Keep up the good work!

As for Virtuals, why even have the option if most will be turned down. Is each virtual supposed to be a 5/5 to be accepted? Sometimes a 1/1 is what we welcome from time to time. Afterall, any virtual could realistically be made as a stage of a multi.

If it is a virtual cache I am more apt to read about it and appreciate the area, than if it was just a stage of a multi, where I just want to get to the end.

I say allow virtuals...it's been awhile since I have done one and they seem to be lacking in my area of Southern Ontario now...atleast no new ones. If the site really want to discourage them (I hope they don't), then get rid of the option liek you did with Locationless.

Remember, this is all about having fun, and if just one finder or even the hider had fun finding a cache, whether it be a virtual or other, then I feel it has enriched some one's life and made it worthwhile to have on the site.

http://ca.geocities.com/geocachingcanada <---NEW!

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

[This message was edited by res2100 on September 11, 2003 at 06:29 PM.]

2.1k · September 11, 2003

triple post

[This message was edited by Woodsters Outdoors on September 11, 2003 at 06:50 PM.]

2.1k · September 11, 2003

ack double post

2.1k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
That is quiet an ironic statement. The only way people will stop to read these is if they get a smiley for them. I live near Kennesaw Battlefield and have read many of the signs around the area. I didn't have to get a smiley to do it. I wanted to know the history of the area. I stopped. If your interested in these signs... stop.

I think the same goes for all caches. If it weren't for a box in the woods to get a smiley face, we wouldn't of bothered to go out there. If we get a smiley face for reading a sign and regular cache can't be placed there, then it's the same thing.

quote:
One thing that is being floated at this time is that fewer than 0.001 percent of cachers are forum regulars (100 out of 100,000 cachers, I think it is more than 50 myself). One of the first things someone does when they are unhappy is come to the forums. Could it be possible that most of those cachers out there are happy with the way this web site is structured at this time?

No not necessarily. From a event cache I went to, people read the forums, but don't post. Why don't they post? Various reasons I imagine. I know some email I have received from people who read the forums but don't speak up is because of backlash. Others don't, because of the politics in it. And some of them don't even read the forums for that same reason.

quote:
According to the 50 forum regulars math, half of them have voted in the poll at this time. Of the 26 that have voted at this time, 88% of them think the cache should be turned down. Most of the people supporting virtual caches are fairly well passionate about it, so I would imagine most have voted. Another 99.999% of the other cachers don't care enough about it to find these forums (which are linked on every web page on this site) and vote in an anonymous poll.

So in other words a poll ain't worth crap, either way. I didn't vote by the way.

Brian

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

1.4k · September 11, 2003

I voted to allow Team360's virtual.

And as I've said before:

Have both.

Think about it -- the virtual is not getting in the way of the physical cache. Nor is the physical cache getting in the way of the virtual. They don't conflict in any way.

Forget the tenth mile rule and treat each type separately.

You can now go and find a physical cache AND pick up a virtual while you're at it.

If you don't like one or the other, then don't do it.

What's so difficult about this?

*****

2.1k · September 11, 2003

I agree jomarac5...whats the difference of finding a benchmark that is within the tenth mile of a physical?

Brian

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

2.3k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
I voted to allow Team360's virtual.

And as I've said before:

Have both.

Think about it -- the virtual is not getting in the way of the physical cache. Nor is the physical cache getting in the way of the virtual. They don't conflict in any way.

Forget the tenth mile rule and treat each type separately.

You can now go and find a physical cache AND pick up a virtual while you're at it.

If you don't like one or the other, then don't do it.

What's so difficult about this?

*****

It must be a full moon out. I completely AGREE with you, Jomarac5, and not because you voted "yes" or that this has to do with just my virtual. It doesn't. It encompasses all future virtuals. In addition to dropping the .1 mile rule, I think ANYONE should be allowed to place a virtual ANYWHERE, since there is nothing to maintain, what's the difference where the placer lives?

As far as saying that no one stops to read those signs, thats not true at all. I STOP. I like to learn about the history of places, and I thought that it was interesting enough to submit it for a virt.

The belt has been getting tighter and tighter around the house rules here. Let's not over-regulate this thing to death.

7.2k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
I think the same goes for all caches. If it weren't for a box in the woods to get a smiley face, we wouldn't of bothered to go out there. If we get a smiley face for reading a sign and regular cache can't be placed there, then it's the same thing.

But see, the owner of this site has said many times that he wants the site to be about finding a container and the challenge involved in hiding it and then the finding of it. That is exactly the point. The submission of points of interest began to include mundane objects so the guidelines changed.

quote:
From a event cache I went to, people read the forums, but don't post. Why don't they post? Various reasons I imagine.

Ahh, but you feel that the majority of those people don't like the guidelines for the site I guess. It is not possible that they could be happy?

quote:
I didn't vote by the way.

Well sir, you have done a great disservice to Team 360 by not supporting them in their poll. You can type long replies but you will not make a simple yes/no choice and click one simple button.

2.1k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
But see, the owner of this site has said many times that he wants the site to be about finding a container and the challenge involved in hiding it and then the finding of it. That is exactly the point. The submission of points of interest began to include mundane objects so the guidelines changed.

LOL..I agree there are some mundane objects listed as virtuals (please don't archive them). But the same goes with the regular cacehs as well as benchmarks. While I can see the fun in benchmarking, it really holds of no value for the site either.

quote:
Ahh, but you feel that the majority of those people don't like the guidelines for the site I guess. It is not possible that they could be happy?

Some could, but I'm referring to the ones that i've spoken too about certain things that go on here. The point being that just because more haven't said anything, doesn't meant they don't feel one way or the other. But, it's not of what our feelings are anyway. It's what the owner of the ite wants as you stated up above.

quote:
Well sir, you have done a great disservice to Team 360 by not supporting them in their poll. You can type long replies but you will not make a simple yes/no choice and click one simple button.

Why, they aren't scientific, as the website owner put it, right? Plus with the rations you have given...my .000000005 % wouldn't of made a difference.

Brian

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

38.2k · September 11, 2003

quote:
The question "Why not a physical?" can be applied to just about EVERY virtual in the database here.

Yep, which is why they've made it harder to place a virtual. The admins were right to crack down on them. Who needs a virtual of a rotting animal carcass, or a flagpole in a park? What is the point?

And what is the point of a virtual anyway? Is it just to jack up your hide count, or is it to bring someone to a place of historic, or special interest? If the latter is your goal and if the area is so special to you, then why not incorporate a regular cache? The problem is not the website's restrictions. It's cache placers that don't have any imagination.

What makes it even worse is that you're not a newbie. You've been around and know the rules and trends. If I didn't know better, I'd say you tried to place a cache you knew wouldn't be approved, just to start a battle.

"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

September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
Originally posted by woof & lulu:
"Virtuals" are old and overdone?

These roadside signs are part of our history, and some of us find them fascinating to read and/or visit.

On a day of rememberance that is an ironic statement.

That is quiet an ironic statement. The only way people will stop to read these is if they get a smiley for them. I live near Kennesaw Battlefield and have read many of the signs around the area. I didn't have to get a smiley to do it. I wanted to know the history of the area. I stopped. If your interested in these signs... stop.

My statement above was in answer to a previous entry that stated Virtuals where old and overdone. (Said entry has now been altered) My point was that not all local historic points are well published or known outside that particular area. How many times do you drive by something that you did not know had historical value until it was pointed out to you. Geocaching or not we stop for things that are of interest to us too, but would like the opportunity that the virtuals provide by pointing out what is not obvious.

I agree with you that somebody might just learn something.

If anyones choice is not to do virtuals, fine, but bashing them is just wrong.

It would be sad indeed if geocaching became only about possessing things, (cache treasures, stats, smileys) without the virtual history of the area.

We have done alot of locationless ones, and believe me they are just as hard work as regular caches. You have to FIND the subject requested and meet the criteria set by the owner.Takes time and effort, but well worth it as some of these things are disappearing of the face of the earth (stone silos, aquaducts, drive-ins) and it creates a wealth of history in the pictures taken and stored here that are not compiled anywhere else. History is rememberance.

I like all caches, they all have their place, but I think TPTB are the ones that have set the quides and should ultimately have the final say

1.4k · September 11, 2003

the owner of this site has said many times that he wants the site to be about finding a container and the challenge involved in hiding it and then the finding of it.

Jeremy is only limiting his revenue source by doing so. Separate the virtuals from the traditionals, like benchmarks and he will have all the bases covered.

I understand that approvers must approve caches based on the criteria set forth by Jeremy, but he, and he alone, can make everyone happy by allowing virtuals and capturing some of the N*v*c*c*e.com and waypoint.org traffic and presenting it to those that sponsor this site i.e. localhikes.com (I'm a reporter and have posted 12 hikes). Increase the traffic, keep the masses happy and enjoy the $$$'s generated. I'm all for someone making a buck. I just don't see why anyone would want to limit their possibilities.....

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

September 11, 2003

If Geocaching.com never allowed virtuals to begin with, we wouldn't be having this debate now. I don't blame geocachers for being upset when virtuals have been allowed in the past and now it's a crap shoot to see if a virtual will be allowed or not. What bugs me is the inconsistency on the part of some of the approvers. This site needs to make a decision on virtuals and stick by it (no exceptions). I would like to see virtuals stay but it seems I'm a member of a small elite group. I still find the enjoyment in the hunt, not what type of cache it is.

Lake Tahoe Geocacher

2.7k · September 11, 2003

If you don't WANT to place a real cache there, leave it alone so you don't spoil it for someone who does.

I fail to see why it is so difficult to just place a micro. Forget the Barbara Striesand about micros every inch of the road. That type of argument is as specious as the old standby, "If I let you have it everybody will want one".

You are not considering placing thousands of micros, just one. I assure you "everybody" won't place one just like it. So you won't be contributing to "geolitter".

I thought about this same thing when a cache I placed collided with a micro that, in my opinion at the time, was hastily placed and caused my two weeks work to be wasted. (My opinion changed after forum discussion)

While I was stewing, I considered placing caches similar to the one that beat me out on EVERY road sign I see. I could be the new cache king with more caches than anyone else in less than a week!

There is more to caching than just placing containers.

There is more to caching than just pinpointing neat places.

Every historical marker, while certainly of signifigance to many, is not necessarily a good cache candidate any more so than every speed limit sign.

A web site devoted to GPS pinpointing historical markers would be a more appropriate place for this kind of "virtual cache".

I have no interest in them, therefore I cannot cite any such sites, but I'm sure they are out there.

Get a piece of paper, put it in a film can, attach it to something nearby, and post the cache.

MHO

"Freedom is a two-way street."

GDAE, Dave

September 11, 2003

quote:
If you don't WANT to place a real cache there, leave it alone so you don't spoil it for someone who does.

Geocachers aren’t exactly beating down the door to place caches in Northern Nevada; sometimes it seems like weeks before a new cache appears. I welcome any kind of well thought out cache virtual or not in my neck of the woods.

Lake Tahoe Geocacher

2.3k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
And what is the point of a virtual anyway? Is it just to jack up your hide count, or is it to bring someone to a place of historic, or special interest? If the latter is your goal and if the area is so special to you, then why not incorporate a regular cache? The problem is not the website's restrictions. It's cache placers that don't have any imagination.

What makes it even worse is that you're not a newbie. You've been around and know the rules and trends. If I didn't know better, I'd say you tried to place a cache you knew wouldn't be approved, just to start a battle.

I wanted to place a virtual, because we HAVE a virtual category. What is the deal with HAVING to place a logbook at the site in order to get it approved? It wouldn't BE a virtual then, would it? Just what exactly is the end product of placing a zillion physical caches, anyhow? The answer: it is a zillion pieces of potential Geo-Litter. Come on, you've all seen it time and time again: cachers who throw a trashy cache out there and then NEVER go back for upkeep or to retrieve it after it gets archived. Virtuals are pure: no upkeep, no container to go retrieve after archiving, no chance of it being stolen.

You're right, I am NOT exactly a newbie. I DID try to place this cache to get it approved. Don't you assume otherwise. I only have just over 200 finds, but aren't you getting tired of finding junk in the caches? I know I am. Don't you need a little variety? Virtuals are just the thing for a nice change of pace, along with Benchmarking. It is my opinion that those two categories are the real future of this sport.

Also please don't even try to label me as an instigator, as that was certainly not my intention. If what is shown in this thread is going to be the prevailing attitude towards virtuals, let's just archive them all and not allow them in the future. Then I guarantee this sport will devolve into the same old boring thing: go find a box, open the box, be disappointed in the quality of the trade items (and you all know THAT'S true, it's always being discussed in the forums), sign the log, and get a smiley face. How much more fun can you ask for?

1.3k · September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
If what is shown in this thread is going to be the prevailing attitude towards virtuals, let's just archive them all and not allow them in the future. Then I guarantee this sport will devolve into the same old boring thing: go find a box, open the box, be disappointed in the quality of the trade items (and you all know THAT'S true, it's always being discussed in the forums), sign the log, and get a smiley face. How much more fun can you ask for?

Well.. letterboxing has survived for over 150 years here in the UK and is growing in popularity... of course there's no take & leave... or smiley face... just a stamp to put in your collection and a stamp & note in their book.

I guess the fun is getting there, just as it is with a virtual, but personally I always liked reading the logs in letterboxes, and since may I do in caches. The future's clear... and plastic/opaque and metal. I haven't yet done a virtual, but have done a couple of multicaches with only one box... so effectivly 4 virtuals and a physical at the end. I cache/letterbox for the challenge... part of that challenge is "OK... I'm within 15 feet... where would I hide it?" and this is lost with a lot of virtuals... "OK, I'm within 15 feet... oh it's that hut" just doesn't do it for me.

I know some like virtuals, so I would hate to see a ban... something for everybody and all that... but I do think the guidelines as they stand, and as they are interpreted by approvers, is good. Virtuals are still getting approved... saw a few in the UK alone this week.

Natty

2.1k · September 12, 2003

I agree, either allow them or do away with them. While your at it, toss the locationless and every other type of cache there are, that don't contain a container with a log in it. But that would open a can of worms.

Brian

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

September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
But that would open a can of worms.

I saw the picture of the can in a different thread, but nobody said anything about it containing worms.

2.3k · September 12, 2003

Figured I would throw my .02 in...

Mtn-man has a valid point that you do not need a virtual to stop and read interesting sign posts and local historic spots.

However I am also for these kind of virtuals because otherwise I would most likely never had known about them or would have found them. I have seen many interesting virtuals of this type that are off the beaten path and are very interesting.

There is no reason they can not co-exist with regular, micros, multi's, etc...

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

2.3k · September 12, 2003

Good thing we still allow traditional caches like this one instead of dangerous virts (this one was just approved the other day)-

"This rubbermaid container is 'buried' but you will NOT need any tools... just a little muscle... If you are the first to find it you may find two AMC movie passes, two tie clips, shoe laces, 'Simpsons' playing cards, Swiss army knife, mini motorcycle helmet, and a charm bracelet...

Best to locate on the weekends or after normal school hours although it is outside the school grounds.

Thanks and good hunting"

Maybe I should have taped a pocketknife to the sign and buried it as well, then it would have been approved...

38.2k · September 12, 2003

quote:
it's a crap shoot to see if a virtual will be allowed or not.

It's not a crap shoot. It's pretty simple. For a virtual to be approved, it has to be something of significant interest AND it has to be impossible to place a real cache there.

I'm glad they tightened up the rules. People were making virtuals out of every lame roadside plaque imaginable, and even items like flagpoles and fence posts. I love history and enjoy reading historical roadside markers, but every one doesn't have to be made into a cache.

"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

1.4k · September 12, 2003

Swiss army knife

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

September 12, 2003

Does the cache have the "WOW" factor? And below, I have a link to a cache that definitely DOES have the "WOW" factor, but has a mini cache hidden nearby. [] So, even if it is a neat idea, you can still put a micro/trad. there to bring people to the site.

Bridge Mural Cache

2.1k · September 12, 2003

Watch out Team 360, an overzealous approver who don't like you, will hunt that cache page down and archive. Then they will say it slipped through, even though it had a knife and was just outside a school...lol

I agree that every little thing doesn't have to be a virtual. But what if on this account, Team 360 said no, a regular cache couldn't be put there. Would it of gotten approved? Even though a person could yes actually put one there without asking permission to do so, others might feel obligated to get permission first, as what is preached before hand.

Brian

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

September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TahoeJoe:
I wish people would get off their anti virtual high horse and realize that both types of caches can coexist together.

Lake Tahoe Geocacher

Amen! Hallelujah!

24.7k · September 12, 2003

Alas it is true. You don't need a virtual cache to read a monument or roadside sign. You don't need a traditional cache to get off your butt and go for a hike either. (see waypoint.org)

There must be something about that smiley face that makes the difference in both cases.

9.4k · September 12, 2003

If every roadsign or marker could be made into a virtual, I'd never make it to work.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

1.4k · September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
I suppose that question could be put to every single historic sign that is already a virtual.

It sure could, but unfortunately they were put out there before the standards were raised.

In MI, only 161 of 1490 are virtuals. In a recent poll NOONE chose virtuals as their favorite type of cache. Of those 161 virtuals, about 15 were placed so long ago they didn't even qualify for the distance restriction. You can literally do all 15 of them in 2 hours.

Anyway, my point here is that Virtuals are already not everyone's favorite things. I'm very happy we're holding them to a higher standard these days.

If it would be right... I'd love to see all the old ones re-evaluated by today's more strict standards and see those that would not pass muster today get archived, but I think they should be allowed to stand as grandfathered cases.

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Assimilating golf balls - one geocache at a time.

2.3k · September 12, 2003

My email tonight to Hemlock:

I find myself having to apologize for criticizing you too harshly in the forums. You may reserve the right to continue thinking of me as an arrogant jackass, however, I am not really a bad guy, just frustrated at the complexity of rules that govern everything here. As I criticized you publicly, I will post this message in the same thread, so that I may apologize in the same public manner.

Jeff of TEAM 360

2.7k · September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by kd4adc:

quote:
Originally posted by TahoeJoe:
I wish people would get off their anti virtual high horse and realize that both types of caches can coexist together.

Lake Tahoe Geocacher

Amen! Hallelujah!

Now, Now, we mustn't discuss religion on the forums!

"Freedom is a two-way street."

GDAE, Dave

2.7k · September 12, 2003

It was mentioned above, "why do we need logbooks".

I agree that a logbook is not needed in a web-based game. It is redundant, and I for one (probably the only one) don't see that they are ALWAYS a necessity, even in a regular cache. My only objections to having them is that they take up a lot of space that could hold more McJunk and they are oftentimes unusable because of wetness anyway.

Space is only a problem in "minis".

OTOH, it takes more ingenuity to make a micro cache container when it is REQUIRED to have a logbook. Also the presence of a logbook delineates the cache as a cache and not just a container that happened to be present near a set of coordinates.

I agree with the poster above who said the fun begins when u get within 15 feet and start thinking “where could it be”. Oh, it’s a building, whoopee.

"Freedom is a two-way street."

GDAE, Dave

2.3k · September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ChurchCampDave:
Oh, it’s a building, whoopee.

Maybe that building is where Wyatt Earp lived, or maybe it's the White House. Either way, a lot of us actually LIKE to see these places, and virtuals DO have a place in geocaching. That's why they have the little "virtual" symbol next to them. If you don't like them, you don't have to do them. But don't try to get rid of them. We like them.

2.7k · September 12, 2003

I never said we need to get rid of them.

My only objection to their EXISTENCE is that they preclude putting a real cache within .1 miles. If this rule were changed, I would not care a whit if people wanted to VC Joe Blow’s house and every tossed White Castle box.

As to Wyatt Earp’s house and the White House, people have been finding them for years without a GPS. Making them a virt just poisons a .1-mile radius for regular caches. In that area might be a really neat place with a really challenging hidey-hole.

Why spoil the potential regular cache for a landmark that everybody finds so easily that they have to sell tickets to control the crowds?

"Freedom is a two-way street."

GDAE, Dave

2.3k · September 12, 2003

I am all in favor of dropping the .1 mile rule for virts!

It's too bad you can't see the real historic value of a well-placed virt. Without them, I would not have known about many places, not just the famous ones. I was just using those 2 places as examples. No need to demean virts to the level of a White Castle box. By the way, you want fries with that?

2.7k · September 12, 2003

Personally, I’m not a history buff. I am content to be doomed to relive it for the most part. (I don’t totally avoid history; it’s just that it usually doesn’t turn me on- despite the fact that I used to be in a “living history” group around the “bi-centennial” era.)

I have never experienced the historical value of a well-placed virt. The very concept of a “well-placed virt” even escapes me from the ones I’ve seen locally. I have never seen a virt page that captured my interest. All of them around here seem to be the local courthouses and police stations. They have great architecture and all, but I pass them every day. Just because some out-of-towner passed by and said, “isn’t that neat” doesn’t make them any more interesting to me. The neat bridges with micros, however have been fun hunts for me.

A database of historical landmarks with coordinates would be useful to many. It is laudable to point them out to others who are interested. I’m sure there are sites devoted to this and those sites are more appropriate places to post landmarks and tombstones and such.

As long as TPTB allow posting of virts here though, I have no objection to using this site for that purpose. I recognize the icon and I do know how to ignore them. It does seem, however that TPTB are phasing them out. Virts really aren’t “caches” by the normal definition of the word.

One of the neatest things about geocaching for me has always been finding new places. Some are historical, some geological; some are just city parks that I never knew existed. But I would not go to see most of them just to go to them (if you can understand what I’m trying to say). I go to hunt the cache. The fact of a neat geology or such is icing on the cake.

"Freedom is a two-way street."

GDAE, Dave

8k · September 13, 2003

If every historical marker should be a virtual then we really do need a separate categories and treat virtuals different from traditional caches like benchmarks.

I like doing virtuals, and sometimes they take me to an interesting place I might not have seen otherwise. But wouldn't it be better to have hidden a physical cache nearby. You would still have made me aware of the place of interest. You don't even need to hide a micro behind the monument or make it a multi-cache. Just put on the cache page - be sure to visit the marker nearby at N xx° x.xxx W yy° y.yyy where this historical event happened. I bet most cachers would stop by to check out the marker.

If the location is inside a national park or monument or for some other reason there is no way to place a physical cache nearby, then it is a candidate for a virtual. Still you have to be able to justify to the admins why this cache would benefit the geocaching community.

My virtual, in a area administered by the NPS, was turned down at first as not having sufficient interest. I was able to explain to the admin that this put a geocache on a popular hiking/biking trail that might not otherwise be visited by someone who would might only go where there there was a cache and the it also represented something about the history of this area before the suburbs of LA began encrouching on it. The cache was then approved.

The exchange of emails with the admin made me realize that there are real guidelines for virtuals. Virtuals that meet the guidelines are approved. The admins have a difficult job determining if a cache meets the guidelines. If they are not sure they will archive the cache, but the if the cache owner can demonstrate to the admin the guidelines were met the cache will be unarchived. The admins are busy and disputed virtuals often fall to the botton of their list of things to do. When I replied about my cache being archived I heard nothing from the admin for a full week; and then it was that my cache was approved and had been unarchived. Immediately appealing to forums and being critical of the Admins in the forums is probably not the way to get a virtual approved. Working though the issues with the admins and realizing that this is not their highest priority so it may take some time would have better results -- and there would be fewer polls in the forums.

東西南北

Why do I always find it in the last place I look?

September 13, 2003

It looks like a great location -- but why just a virtual cache? You could have folks read these historical facts and still find a real cache (maybe even a multi-stage cache based on finding the information). If you put a virtual cache here, it takes away the opportunity for someone else to use it for a real cache location.

POLL on archived virtual

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