"Pure" Geocaching vs. Offshoots

1.1k · March 17, 2002

The discussion in this thread has piqued my curiosity on what the concensus is on locationless caches...whether they should be included here, and how their 'finds' should be counted. (Please read the above thread if you're not sure what I mean by 'locationless'.)

[This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on March 18, 2002 at 08:42 PM.]

March 17, 2002

[X] CowboyNeal.

March 17, 2002

[X] CowboyNeal.

1.1k · March 18, 2002

So far, of 244 people who've visited this discussion thread, only 27 have voted.

That tells me the poll answer for the large majority (89%) is:

[X] I couldn't care less one way or the other.

1k · March 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:
....

[_X_] I couldn't care less one way or the other.

Well actually no ... it could just show that folks are stopping back in and viewing the results ... after they've voted. Just like I've done twice.

March 18, 2002

True Geocaching?

Isn't the basic concept of "true geocaching" to get off your rump and go adventuring?

I'd vote that any cache, normal, virtual, event, letterbox, multi... whatever is a true cache so long as you were slightly challenged when you searched for it.

There's a cache in Adams County Ohio, Buzzards Roost Box, that I would have been happy to do just for the view at the end of the trail, Oy! that was a hike too...

Draegon

Team Draegon

Cincinnati, Ohio USA

"To win without risk, is to suceed without glory"

March 18, 2002

I agree with the assertion that the true point of Geocaching isn't necessarily to find nifty schwag.. this is supposed to be a way of sharing cool sites and neat places. In the short time I've been doing this, I've learned more about my current hometown (Phoenix, AZ) than I've learned in eight months of living here. If it weren't for Geocaching, I probably wouldn't have found out about places like Water Ranch or this wonderful Cactus Garden.

Virtual Caches allow for us to place Geocaches in environmentally sensitive areas where placing a cache might not be appropriate as well. For example, technically it is illegal for us to place a Geocache on federal National Park Service land in the United States... but there's nothing stopping us from putting a virtual site there. Especially out here in the Desert Southwest, being environmentally sensitive is probably a good thing, worthy of encouraging.

It's the TRIP that counts, really. That's the spirit of Geocaching. Hometown is valid because it requires that you get off your fanny and go find something. And, although there's the argument that "what if two people share the same hometown", most reasonably sized cities have multiple entrances, and different vantage points.. which makes the "hunt" more challenging. For example: in my original hometown (Anaheim, CA), there must be close to a hundred signs that say "Welcome to Anaheim" that could be used for this. In addition, there are other places (like the entrance of Disneyland, for example) that scream "Anaheim, CA" that would probably be MORE interesting than a roadside sign.

The point is, variety is good. Anything that gets you away from the screen exploring your world is in the spirit of Geocaching.

[This message was edited by feedle on March 18, 2002 at 09:04 AM.]

March 18, 2002

This isn't about virtuals... it's about the locationless ones. The argument about virtuals is a whole of kettle of whatever they're making them eat on Fear Factor this week.

Virtuals are usually a specific location. Something cool to see, but no place or no permission to put a cache box.

Locationless ones are occasionally neat (ie, center of your state), but usually kinda pointless. Change your name into coordinates, find a palindromic coord... uh, why? Go find something cool and make it a virtual. My opinion, nothing more.

> Martin (Magellan 330)

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

March 18, 2002

This isn't about virtuals... it's about the locationless ones. The argument about virtuals is a whole of kettle of whatever they're making them eat on Fear Factor this week.

Virtuals are usually a specific location. Something cool to see, but no place or no permission to put a cache box.

Locationless ones are occasionally neat (ie, center of your state), but usually kinda pointless. Change your name into coordinates, find a palindromic coord... uh, why? Go find something cool and make it a virtual. My opinion, nothing more.

> Martin (Magellan 330)

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

1.1k · March 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:
So far, of 244 people who've visited this discussion thread, only 27 have voted.

That tells me the poll answer for the large majority (89%) is:

[_X_] I couldn't care less one way or the other.

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk-eye:

Well actually no ... it could just show that folks are stopping back in and viewing the results ... after they've voted. Just like I've done twice.

Ah, ok. I've opened the thread several times, myself. So, apparently it doesn't count the number unique visitors, but just how many TOTAL visits?

1k · March 18, 2002

quote:
....
Ah, ok. I've opened the thread several times, myself. So, apparently it doesn't count the number _unique_ visitors, but just how many TOTAL visits?

Yeah, kind of nice ... but not a true number when you want to see how many "different" people view the string.

March 18, 2002

I think the real problem with responses is that your questions are not very fair or impartial. None of the choices you’ve provided fits my feelings on this issue. As I mentioned in Clayjar's thread, I like some locationless caches, but not others. You did not give me a place to record such a vote.

You also only give us the option of accepting your view that the issue with such caches has something to do with "logging" them. I could frankly care less if people log each one of these, or any other cache a thousand times. It has nothing to do with the real issue for me.

I also think that last question was a bit offensive. Some folks may have not felt that such caches are a good idea, but were offended at the way you categorized them as "purists".

Perhaps if you had a more even handed list, or at least had an “out” for those that don’t agree with any of your choices, you might have gotten more responses.

As I mentioned before, I think that at some point, a line has to be drawn in the sand about what constitutes a cache and what doesn't. If we don't (or more appropriately Jeremy doesn't) do this, eventually the geocaching.com website will become a listing of points of interest and fun activities. Kind of like the "Where's the beef" commercials, I'll be asking: "Where's the cache?"

Ponder on these ideas:

When was your town founded? (No need to leave the house! Just post when your town was founded!)

Post the location of your kids Little League Game. (Or any other sport.)

Any Corporate Office's in your town? Post them here!

Log the best places to buy caching gear!

What’s your favorite coffee shop?

Where are the cheap gas prices in your area?

These are some I came up with in just a few minutes. If this kind of thing was allowed, thousands of such listings could be posted in no time, making other perhaps more deserving listings harder and harder to find. I have no real problem with any of this kind of thing, but geocaching.com is not the place for them.

Why do you want to change what I consider a really cool game and “dilute” it? I happen to like geocaching the way it is and think the more we push the envelope on this, the worse the game becomes. For me, such a change is not a good thing.

To expand on that, one of the basic arguments in favor of all locationless caches seems to be that some people enjoy them, so therefore they should be allowed. The problem with this logic is that there are a lot of fun things in the world, but we don't (nor should we) allow all of them to be listed here. We have got to have standards that determine what is, and what is not acceptable. If I started using a cache page as just a way to correspond with one of my relatives for example, I think we'd all agree that that would not be an acceptable cache, but without some standard what’s to prevent me from doing that? Likewise, what if I placed a logbook only cache, gave some simple instructions to find it, but no coordinates? What I just created is, infact, a letterbox and unless the box has coordinates as well, it's not appropriate to be listed here. It should rightly be listed at letterboxing.org instead. While letterboxing may be fun, such a box is sufficiently different from a cache so as to preclude it from this game. (Hybrid letterboxes/caches are acceptable, though. It’s the addition of coordinates that make them acceptable, by the way.) Likewise, if I had a virtual cache that consisted of nothing but a picture of an item, but no coordinates for it, it could indeed be fun to try to find the item, but that's not geocaching, it's a scavenger hunt.

As I mentioned before, the original premise of this game revolves around the use of coordinates to find something. To me, this is a central part of the game. As soon as you take that out of the equation, it becomes something else entirely. Just because a thing is fun, is not sufficient reason to list it here.

The other important part of the definition of geocaching is that it be something hidden.

Per Merriam-Webster:

vir·tu·al

Pronunciation: 'v&r-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; 'v&rch-w&l

1 : being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted

cache

Pronunciation: 'kash

1 a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements

hide

Inflected Form(s): hid /'hid/; hid·den /'hi-d&n/; or hid; hid·ing /'hI-di[ng]/

1 a : to put out of sight : SECRETE b : to conceal for shelter or protection : SHIELD

2 : to keep secret

The “out of sight, concealed, or secret” part is critical to defining all caches, including virtual caches. Locationless caches are a subset of virtual caches, so they must still abide by the same criteria or they simply are not caches.

To summarize: If you eliminate "A", the coordinates, and/or "B" the hidden aspect of the game, it's no longer a cache. It may be a fun diversion, but that doesn't mean it belongs here. Heck, basketball is fun too, but I don't want to see the forums, or cache listings turn into a list of pickup games. This is just not the appropriate place for that. If listings of fun things are what you are seeking, there are plenty of other more appropriate places for that.

Thanks for listening.

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

March 18, 2002

I think the real problem with responses is that your questions are not very fair or impartial. None of the choices you’ve provided fits my feelings on this issue. As I mentioned in Clayjar's thread, I like some locationless caches, but not others. You did not give me a place to record such a vote.

You also only give us the option of accepting your view that the issue with such caches has something to do with "logging" them. I could frankly care less if people log each one of these, or any other cache a thousand times. It has nothing to do with the real issue for me.

I also think that last question was a bit offensive. Some folks may have not felt that such caches are a good idea, but were offended at the way you categorized them as "purists".

Perhaps if you had a more even handed list, or at least had an “out” for those that don’t agree with any of your choices, you might have gotten more responses.

As I mentioned before, I think that at some point, a line has to be drawn in the sand about what constitutes a cache and what doesn't. If we don't (or more appropriately Jeremy doesn't) do this, eventually the geocaching.com website will become a listing of points of interest and fun activities. Kind of like the "Where's the beef" commercials, I'll be asking: "Where's the cache?"

Ponder on these ideas:

When was your town founded? (No need to leave the house! Just post when your town was founded!)

Post the location of your kids Little League Game. (Or any other sport.)

Any Corporate Office's in your town? Post them here!

Log the best places to buy caching gear!

What’s your favorite coffee shop?

Where are the cheap gas prices in your area?

These are some I came up with in just a few minutes. If this kind of thing was allowed, thousands of such listings could be posted in no time, making other perhaps more deserving listings harder and harder to find. I have no real problem with any of this kind of thing, but geocaching.com is not the place for them.

Why do you want to change what I consider a really cool game and “dilute” it? I happen to like geocaching the way it is and think the more we push the envelope on this, the worse the game becomes. For me, such a change is not a good thing.

To expand on that, one of the basic arguments in favor of all locationless caches seems to be that some people enjoy them, so therefore they should be allowed. The problem with this logic is that there are a lot of fun things in the world, but we don't (nor should we) allow all of them to be listed here. We have got to have standards that determine what is, and what is not acceptable. If I started using a cache page as just a way to correspond with one of my relatives for example, I think we'd all agree that that would not be an acceptable cache, but without some standard what’s to prevent me from doing that? Likewise, what if I placed a logbook only cache, gave some simple instructions to find it, but no coordinates? What I just created is, infact, a letterbox and unless the box has coordinates as well, it's not appropriate to be listed here. It should rightly be listed at letterboxing.org instead. While letterboxing may be fun, such a box is sufficiently different from a cache so as to preclude it from this game. (Hybrid letterboxes/caches are acceptable, though. It’s the addition of coordinates that make them acceptable, by the way.) Likewise, if I had a virtual cache that consisted of nothing but a picture of an item, but no coordinates for it, it could indeed be fun to try to find the item, but that's not geocaching, it's a scavenger hunt.

As I mentioned before, the original premise of this game revolves around the use of coordinates to find something. To me, this is a central part of the game. As soon as you take that out of the equation, it becomes something else entirely. Just because a thing is fun, is not sufficient reason to list it here.

The other important part of the definition of geocaching is that it be something hidden.

Per Merriam-Webster:

vir·tu·al

Pronunciation: 'v&r-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; 'v&rch-w&l

1 : being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted

cache

Pronunciation: 'kash

1 a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements

hide

Inflected Form(s): hid /'hid/; hid·den /'hi-d&n/; or hid; hid·ing /'hI-di[ng]/

1 a : to put out of sight : SECRETE b : to conceal for shelter or protection : SHIELD

2 : to keep secret

The “out of sight, concealed, or secret” part is critical to defining all caches, including virtual caches. Locationless caches are a subset of virtual caches, so they must still abide by the same criteria or they simply are not caches.

To summarize: If you eliminate "A", the coordinates, and/or "B" the hidden aspect of the game, it's no longer a cache. It may be a fun diversion, but that doesn't mean it belongs here. Heck, basketball is fun too, but I don't want to see the forums, or cache listings turn into a list of pickup games. This is just not the appropriate place for that. If listings of fun things are what you are seeking, there are plenty of other more appropriate places for that.

Thanks for listening.

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

1.1k · March 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
I think the real problem with responses is that your questions are not very fair or impartial. None of the choices you’ve provided fits my feelings on this issue. As I mentioned in Clayjar's thread, I like some locationless caches, but not others. You did not give me a place to record such a vote. [...] Perhaps if you had a more even handed list, or at least had an “out” for those that don’t agree with any of your choices, you might have gotten more responses.

I've added a 5th choice, "None of the above" to accomodate this issue for future voters. (Although, I suppose that's not fair to the first 42 voters, who were forced to pick from the first four choices. Oh well, too late to go back now.) It'll be interesting to see if the new "out" will increase the percentage of voters from here on out.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:

You also only give us the option of accepting your view that the issue with such caches has something to do with "logging" them. I could frankly care less if people log each one of these, or any other cache a thousand times. It has nothing to do with the real issue for me.

Sure, there may be other issues. But the whole point of this particular poll was to see how people felt about having locationless caches vs. whether they should be counted as finds.

You're welcome to post a poll (or a discussion thread) on anything that you feel is a worthwhile issue to discuss.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
I also think that last question was a bit offensive. Some folks may have not felt that such caches are a good idea, but were offended at the way you categorized them as "purists".

My apologies for coming across as offensive. My label was in no way intended to be an insult.

pur·ism

Pronunciation: pyoor'iz'm

1. strict observance of or insistence on precise usage or on application of formal, often pedantic rules, as in language, art, etc.

(purist: one who practices purism)

I don't see that there's anything offensive with precise observance of the guidelines of something. Do you? (Perhaps you mistook my meaning for that of 'puritanical', which means "extremely or excessively strict in matters of morals or religion"? While I still don't necessarily see what's wrong with that (as long as the person doesn't force their religion down my throat), I can see how it might be more likely to be taken offense at.)

Anyway, my point is that I wasn't trying to call anyone names, I was just trying to allow a voting category for those who would prefer not to see Geocaching diluted away from its original form. From what I read of your post, it sounds kind of like you fit into that category. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
As I mentioned before, I think that at some point, a line has to be drawn in the sand about what constitutes a cache and what doesn't. If we don't (or more appropriately Jeremy doesn't) do this, eventually the geocaching.com website will become a listing of points of interest and fun activities.

See what I mean? (Again, I think that's a completely valid view. That was the point of my poll. To see how people feel about locationless caches, and whether or not they should be allowed and/or counted as finds. I certainly didn't intend to word my voting choices in a way that would offend anyone.)

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:

Ponder on these ideas:

+ When was your town founded? (No need to leave the house! Just post when your town was founded!)

+ Post the location of your kids Little League Game. (Or any other sport.)

+ Any Corporate Office's in your town? Post them here!

+ Log the best places to buy caching gear!

+ What’s your favorite coffee shop?

+ Where are the cheap gas prices in your area?

These are some I came up with in just a few minutes.

Are these examples of approved caches you found? I haven't come across any like that, myself.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:

If this kind of thing was allowed, thousands of such listings could be posted in no time, making other perhaps more deserving listings harder and harder to find.

That's what I think is the cool thing about the polls I've seen Jeremy doing lately...to get concensus on "on the fence" caches. So far, the two I saw (McDonands and Favorite Sports Arena) were voted down.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
I have no real problem with any of this kind of thing, but geocaching.com is not the place for them.

Why do you want to change what I consider a really cool game and “dilute” it? I happen to like geocaching the way it is and think the more we push the envelope on this, the worse the game becomes. For me, such a change is not a good thing.

Again, how is that not a purist view? (And again, not that there's anything wrong with that.)

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
To expand on that, one of the basic arguments in favor of all locationless caches seems to be that some people enjoy them, so therefore they should be allowed. The problem with this logic is that there are a lot of fun things in the world, but we don't (nor should we) allow all of them to be listed here.

Exactly the point of my poll!

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
We have got to have standards that determine what is, and what is not acceptable.

You know what I'm thinking here, so I won't repeat it again.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
If I started using a cache page as just a way to correspond with one of my relatives for example, I think we'd all agree that that would not be an acceptable cache, but without some standard what’s to prevent me from doing that?

Good thing there are standards, huh? (Again, I think Jeremy's polling idea was a good one.)

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
As I mentioned before, the original premise of this game revolves around the use of coordinates to find something. To me, this is a central part of the game. As soon as you take that out of the equation, it becomes something else entirely. Just because a thing is fun, is not sufficient reason to list it here. [...] The other important part of the definition of geocaching is that it be something hidden.

The “out of sight, concealed, or secret” part is critical to defining all caches, including virtual caches. Locationless caches are a subset of virtual caches, so they must still abide by the same criteria or they simply are not caches.

So, what you're saying is that we should establish some formal guidelines for what a cache is, and then strictly observe them?

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
Thanks for listening.

No problem. And thank you for sharing! Getting an idea of how people feel about locationless caches, and why, is exactly what I was hoping to do here. I appreciate your input.

- Zuck

[This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on March 18, 2002 at 09:40 PM.]

1.1k · March 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
I think the real problem with responses is that your questions are not very fair or impartial. None of the choices you’ve provided fits my feelings on this issue. As I mentioned in Clayjar's thread, I like some locationless caches, but not others. You did not give me a place to record such a vote. [...] Perhaps if you had a more even handed list, or at least had an “out” for those that don’t agree with any of your choices, you might have gotten more responses.

I've added a 5th choice, "None of the above" to accomodate this issue for future voters. (Although, I suppose that's not fair to the first 42 voters, who were forced to pick from the first four choices. Oh well, too late to go back now.) It'll be interesting to see if the new "out" will increase the percentage of voters from here on out.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:

You also only give us the option of accepting your view that the issue with such caches has something to do with "logging" them. I could frankly care less if people log each one of these, or any other cache a thousand times. It has nothing to do with the real issue for me.

Sure, there may be other issues. But the whole point of this particular poll was to see how people felt about having locationless caches vs. whether they should be counted as finds.

You're welcome to post a poll (or a discussion thread) on anything that you feel is a worthwhile issue to discuss.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
I also think that last question was a bit offensive. Some folks may have not felt that such caches are a good idea, but were offended at the way you categorized them as "purists".

My apologies for coming across as offensive. My label was in no way intended to be an insult.

pur·ism

Pronunciation: pyoor'iz'm

1. strict observance of or insistence on precise usage or on application of formal, often pedantic rules, as in language, art, etc.

(purist: one who practices purism)

I don't see that there's anything offensive with precise observance of the guidelines of something. Do you? (Perhaps you mistook my meaning for that of 'puritanical', which means "extremely or excessively strict in matters of morals or religion"? While I still don't necessarily see what's wrong with that (as long as the person doesn't force their religion down my throat), I can see how it might be more likely to be taken offense at.)

Anyway, my point is that I wasn't trying to call anyone names, I was just trying to allow a voting category for those who would prefer not to see Geocaching diluted away from its original form. From what I read of your post, it sounds kind of like you fit into that category. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
As I mentioned before, I think that at some point, a line has to be drawn in the sand about what constitutes a cache and what doesn't. If we don't (or more appropriately Jeremy doesn't) do this, eventually the geocaching.com website will become a listing of points of interest and fun activities.

See what I mean? (Again, I think that's a completely valid view. That was the point of my poll. To see how people feel about locationless caches, and whether or not they should be allowed and/or counted as finds. I certainly didn't intend to word my voting choices in a way that would offend anyone.)

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:

Ponder on these ideas:

+ When was your town founded? (No need to leave the house! Just post when your town was founded!)

+ Post the location of your kids Little League Game. (Or any other sport.)

+ Any Corporate Office's in your town? Post them here!

+ Log the best places to buy caching gear!

+ What’s your favorite coffee shop?

+ Where are the cheap gas prices in your area?

These are some I came up with in just a few minutes.

Are these examples of approved caches you found? I haven't come across any like that, myself.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:

If this kind of thing was allowed, thousands of such listings could be posted in no time, making other perhaps more deserving listings harder and harder to find.

That's what I think is the cool thing about the polls I've seen Jeremy doing lately...to get concensus on "on the fence" caches. So far, the two I saw (McDonands and Favorite Sports Arena) were voted down.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
I have no real problem with any of this kind of thing, but geocaching.com is not the place for them.

Why do you want to change what I consider a really cool game and “dilute” it? I happen to like geocaching the way it is and think the more we push the envelope on this, the worse the game becomes. For me, such a change is not a good thing.

Again, how is that not a purist view? (And again, not that there's anything wrong with that.)

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
To expand on that, one of the basic arguments in favor of all locationless caches seems to be that some people enjoy them, so therefore they should be allowed. The problem with this logic is that there are a lot of fun things in the world, but we don't (nor should we) allow all of them to be listed here.

Exactly the point of my poll!

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
We have got to have standards that determine what is, and what is not acceptable.

You know what I'm thinking here, so I won't repeat it again.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
If I started using a cache page as just a way to correspond with one of my relatives for example, I think we'd all agree that that would not be an acceptable cache, but without some standard what’s to prevent me from doing that?

Good thing there are standards, huh? (Again, I think Jeremy's polling idea was a good one.)

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
As I mentioned before, the original premise of this game revolves around the use of coordinates to find something. To me, this is a central part of the game. As soon as you take that out of the equation, it becomes something else entirely. Just because a thing is fun, is not sufficient reason to list it here. [...] The other important part of the definition of geocaching is that it be something hidden.

The “out of sight, concealed, or secret” part is critical to defining all caches, including virtual caches. Locationless caches are a subset of virtual caches, so they must still abide by the same criteria or they simply are not caches.

So, what you're saying is that we should establish some formal guidelines for what a cache is, and then strictly observe them?

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
Thanks for listening.

No problem. And thank you for sharing! Getting an idea of how people feel about locationless caches, and why, is exactly what I was hoping to do here. I appreciate your input.

- Zuck

[This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on March 18, 2002 at 09:40 PM.]

March 18, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:
So far, of 244 people who've visited this discussion thread, only 27 have voted.

That tells me the poll answer for the large majority (89%) is:

[_X_] I couldn't care less one way or the other.

Nope, I didn't vote previously because I didn't feel any of the choices matched my opinion well enough.

My take on a locationless cache is that it has no coords. You find the requested item or whatever and post the coordinates of that which you have located. I can't say that I especially care for those. The multiple possible coords situation is one in which I'm a little more interested.

The issue to me is whether or not the locationless listings make a geocache. If Jeremy or whatever other power that is chooses to allow them, that's his/their business and attempt to please as many as possible and reasonable. But I'd wish even more that the ignore list was available so that I could toggle those caches off. Frankly, my preference is to not have them at all. But whether they are allowed to exist or not, the &quotcount&quot thing doesn't enter into it for me. I am not so hung up on either my find count or the counts of other cachers to worry about whether someone is trying to &quotartificially raise their 'find' counts&quot or how my find count appears in comparison to others.

T-storm

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

1.1k · March 19, 2002

Two people have chosen that option since I added it, but only one of them explained. (Thanks, T-Storm!)

What use is telling us that none of those choices fit, if you don't explain how you do feel?

Or perhaps it was someone who already left a comment about why none of the choices fit, and they've come back and added the vote, now that the choice is available? (Yeah, I'm sure that's it! Or at least that's what I'm going to tell myself anyway.)

1.1k · March 19, 2002

Two people have chosen that option since I added it, but only one of them explained. (Thanks, T-Storm!)

What use is telling us that none of those choices fit, if you don't explain how you do feel?

Or perhaps it was someone who already left a comment about why none of the choices fit, and they've come back and added the vote, now that the choice is available? (Yeah, I'm sure that's it! Or at least that's what I'm going to tell myself anyway.)

March 19, 2002

I like to find a box. I like to sign a logbook. I like to tromp through the woods off the beaten path like an elephant telling passerbys that I'm looking for a contact lens.

As for me, I've only thus far gone after the caches. No biggie. I'll probably do the virtuals in the Summer when it gets so stinkin' hot down here that I'll not want to leave my car.

My kids won't care for virtuals. They're in it for the Happy Meal toys (which we almost always match at the local feed store enroute home anyway).

Multi's are caches, by the way (unless they're multi virtuals). In the end, there's a box. Letterbox is cool, too. A physical representation of your laborious find. I'll save the palindrones (ie: abN cd.cba abE cd.cba), quintiplets (ie: xxN aa.aaa xxE aa.aaa) and the Degree Confluence Project (ie: xxN 00.000 xxE 00.000) for another day, too. Unless, of course, there's a box there.

Of course, I don't think there is anything wrong with people who want to go look for the 'others'. No biggie in my book. Although, the armchair virtual hunters who log every virtual from their cozy armchair DO irritate the crap outta me.

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

20.7k · March 19, 2002

I considered not replying to this forum. I voted yesterday, but I wasn't going to enter my comment because everyone has already heard my opinion. After reading the most recent posts, however, I changed my mind.

I don't understand the position of those who wish to limit the scope of this activity. Lately, we've seen people trying to limit the scope by narrowly defining every word they can find. By their lead, this cache type is not allowed because a virtual cache has to be A location. Give it a rest, let the activity grow. If players don't like a cache type, it will go away. Besides, by this logic, the dreaded micro would be abolished because many of them don't have a give-n-take aspect.

Geocaching is an incredibly young activity. By all accounts, geocaching is open to new ideas and change. 'Multi-location' virtual caches have been around for some time. Like any other specific cache or cache-type, every player can choose whether they wish to hunt these virtual caches. No one is making anyone do anything they don't wish to.

Also, there are very few of these. The way they are listed, they will appear on very few search pages. It is unlikely that anyone will have to scroll past pages of these while doing a search.

As soon as I post this, someone will come back with a prediction that soon there will be thousands of multi-location virtuals. This will result in having to scroll past them while searching for a 'true' cache. Again, even this is not the end of the world.

I am confident that if this type of cache ever became plentiful, Jeremy will present an update that resolves any problem caused by this. This may be done by assigning a fictitious location to this cache type so they don't appear on a search of caches within x miles.

It may be resolved by creating a new cache-type and allowing us to include or exclude certain cache types from our searches. . This would also satisfy those players who don't care for other cache-types (the dreaded micro).

Again, everyone should just relax. If you think a particular cache is lame, don't go after it. Sorry about the rambling.

"Pure" Geocaching vs. Offshoots

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

Join the conversation