Should a physical cache take precedence over a virtual?

[+Sissy-n-CR]

I has occured to me that there are a few places that a physical caches could actually be placed in an area, but someone has already decided to make a virtual out of it.

 

Should physical caches take precedence over virtual caches, even if there is one there already? In other words, can a physical cache go in right next to a virtual without the usual laws of proximity?

 

Or should it be whatever is there first gets to keep the area?

 

-- Insert pithy aphorism here --

[+The Leprechauns]

I voted for the physical cache, in view of the recent suggested revisions to the guidelines to the effect that virtual caches ought only be approved if the hider can make a case why a traditional physical cache could NOT be located at that site.

 

I am still not sure whether I agree with that guideline!

 

An even harder case: the often-visited spot serves as a virtual stage of an offset cache (for example, take info. off of a sign to find coordinates to an ammo box hidden a half mile away, far from the crowds). There, I'd say you already have your physical cache.

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

What if the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about?

[+Olar]

I voted in favor of "whoever claims first" however I see nothing wrong with an email to the virtual owner asking if they would mind you placing a cache next to theirs. Or separating the two by a respectable distance of say a 5 to 10 minute hike if possible should be enough to not worry about it.

Recently a "finder limited" cache was placed near my virtual (5 to 10 min. hike) which I didn't mind at all. The humorous thing though was that not one of the 5 or 6 finders twigged to the fact that there was an easy find nearby. Poor cache file management I suppose.

Cheers, Olar

 

[+welch]

i picked the first choice, but would like to point out i would have a virtual to a physical that isnt maintained.

personaly i prefer physicals but if no will take care of them they will just become piles of soggy crud, which would detract from the area. and the point of placing a cache (virtual or phycical) was to point out an interesting place you might not know about, right?

 

[+briansnat]

I always prefer physical caches, but if you find a virtual in an area where you'd like to place a cache, then ask the other cache owner as a courtesy. They really have no claim on the area, but if they object, then look elsewhere rather than starting a war.

 

Personally, I'd be happy to have another cache near one of mine, as it would encourage visits to my cache.

 

"Men don't stop playing because they get old, they get old because they stop playing" Oliver Wendell Holmes

[+georgeandmary]

Proximity would only apply to two physical caches. If you have a physical and virtual cache really close to each other there would be no problem in confusing the two since one is virtual.

 

I don't think any would need to take priority. You usaully place a virtual where you can't place a physical.

 

Can you give me an example of what you're concerned about?

 

george

 

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

[+Sissy-n-CR]

I don't want to mention a particular virtual so as to not offend the hider.

 

However, in vague terms, there is a virtual to a building that is open to the public. You can wander anywhere you want, but there are some locked doors and "employees only" signs, but pretty much it's wide open. In order to claim this cache all you have to do is answer a very simple question that you can find in a brochure at the front door. In fact, you can answer the question from research on the internet! Basically, what I'd call a "lame virtual."

 

On the other hand, there are myriad hiding places for micros, even a limited few for smallish regular boxes, and at least one really good spot for a 7.62 ammo can. GPSr's would be of very limited use--if not useless--inside the structure due to the material it's made of.

 

Gaining permission to place inside this struture would be a question, but being a state park there are no standing prohibitions.

 

I'm certain that I could have placed a physical cache where the hunters would have to learn about the site from the brochure or a tour and then, using that knowledge, have a challenging hunt to find the cache inside this interesting building.

 

We've run across other similar virtuals that are just not challenging or well thought out. I don't think these should be able to "hold" a spot simply because they were there first. I don't know if the virtual should be removed and I'm leaning against that, but I think it a waste if we couldn't put a challenging physical near, or almost on top of, a simple 1/1 virtual.

 

I understand 1/1's and virtuals have their place, but should that preclude being able to put a more challeging one there?

 

CR

 

-- Insert pithy aphorism here --

[+Planet]

Have both. I've never done a virtual (yet) but why not both for those who do both?

 

Cache you later,

Planet

[+Freelens&Mosie]

OOpps! I gues I just did

 

You can't be lost if you don't care where you are.

[+wcgreen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

Talking about a building in a state park, Sissy-n-CR wrote:

 

"On the other hand, there are myriad hiding places for micros, even a limited few for smallish regular boxes, and at least one really good spot for a 7.62 ammo can. GPSr's would be of very limited use--if not useless--inside the structure due to the material it's made of.

 

Gaining permission to place inside this struture would be a question, but being a state park there are no standing prohibitions."

---

 

I'd definitely get permission before hiding *anything* in a building. Sooner or later, bomb squads will start charging those responsibile for false alarms in the way that some rescue teams charge those who need rescuing.

 

With that have been noted, I see no reason for a physical cache to supercede a virtual one. Of course, I read 'supercede' as 'replace'. Place the physical cache by the virtual and get two finds.

 

'Lame' virtual caches are a different argument.

 

--

wcgreen

Wendy Chatley Green

[+dwmurphy]

there should be no reason why both types can't coexist with each other. I would consider it a bonus to have both types in the same place.

 

Expand your universe of knowledge and appreciation

 

I'm not Lost, my GPS says I'm right here....no here......no here.

[+Nurse Dave]

because the fair thing is whoever came first. I want to say the physical cache because it drives me crazy that people don't go to the trouble of putting a physical in place where there can be one. It also seems a little silly to have both. You are just saying that you find the cache and then get to log it again because you are standing at a virtual cache.

 

---Real men cache in shorts.

[+dwmurphy]

No, you don't get to log the same cache twice!!!

 

You get to log 2 entirely different caches ONCE

 

If I were to place a box under a rock ledge at the base of a waterfall, I could list the box as one cache and the waterfall as an entirely different virtual cache.

 

People can have a choice as to what type of cache they are looking for.

 

Stolen from the Geocache FAQ page:

* Virtual caches - A cache is actually an existing landmark, such as a tombstone or statue.

 

I'm not Lost, my GPS says I'm right here....no here......no here.

[+Nurse Dave]

Find #1 the physical cache

Find #2 the waterfall you have to stand at to find the cache.

 

Basically one cache, two finds.

 

---Real men cache in shorts.

[+Indy Diver]

I place both types of caches. When placing a cache I put it in areas that ether I wish to have people come and have a look around or hike a trail. In traveling around the state in Indiana I have found several places for virtual caches that would not let me place a regular cache. I have then had people contact me about placing a Micro cache at the same place. (I say yes) As stated above 2 caches are better than one. Indiana’s longest trail (58 Miles) the Knobstone had several caches on it. I then placed 9 more caches on the trail to draw more people to the area. I feel that the more caches in an area the better chances you have of drawing more people.

 

I do think that the first cache in an area has the right to say no when asked to have another cache placed in the same spot. I have never said no to anyone and would hope that no one else would say no.

 

Cache On!

Indy Diver

[+Jamie Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dwmurphy:

there should be no reason why both types can't coexist with each other.

---

My opinion of this is that the reason for a cache to exist in the first place it to bring someone somewhere where they wouldn't have otherwise gone.

 

I've been to a number of very scenic caches, but I didn't have any desire to make a virtual. Why? Because the physical cache serves the purpose already. It's the same reason I wouldn't place another physical nearby.

 

Virtual caches on top of physical caches are redundant.

 

To answer the question, I refer you to the Guide to Creating and Hiding a Cache page. It says, in part, "Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why a regular geocache – perhaps a micro or only a log book - couldn’t be placed there?” If there is a good answer, then it may be a valid virtual cache opportunity. Also, consider making the location a step in a multi-stage cache, with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

 

There have been virtual caches approved in the past on the basis that "a physical cache could not be appropriately maintained" at the location, often by a user who is traveling through the area. This essentially "blocks" the area for later placement of a physical cache. Physical caches have priority, so virtual caches of this nature will usually not be approved."

 

Although I don't feel that this guideline is enforced at all, unfortunately. Otherwise it answers the question quite clearly.

 

Jamie

 

[This message was edited by Jamie Z on October 28, 2002 at 05:19 AM.]

[Rubbertoe]

I don't see why someone must feel the need to leave another cache (physical) at the location of an already established virtual cache. Granted, I realize a lot of folks like signing the log books and phsyically trading items - but if there is a virtual cache already at a location, wouldn't it be a better option for everyone if you hid your physical cache somewhere else?

 

I understand where some of you folks are coming from, but it also sounds a little bit like sour grapes for someone that didn't find a "good" spot before the virtual cache placer did.

 

And, heh, as for leaving a cache in a public building - I can certainly understand why the person would have made it a virtual instead. It just sounds like a bad idea, leaving "stuff" inside of a building, be it a state park building or otherwise. Even with permission, that still sounds like a potentially troublesome situation.

 

So, I think that if there is already a virtual at a spot where you think a real cache should be - too bad, they had their cache there first. I don't think this should prevent someone from leaving a physical cache nearby, but I think anything closer than 100 yards or so would be redundant.

 

I have a virtual cache at a unique local cemetary... and yes, there are probably a few places around there that I could have stashed a micro - but I didn't pick that location for people to come and find stuff. I picked that location because I wanted people to be able to see the object at those coordinates. Just because I chose not to stick a micro in one of the trees or behind a rock somewhere, it doesn't make my cache any less respectable, imho.

 

The Toe Pages

[+Colorado Cacher]

I LIKE VIRTUALS............THEY SCROLL DOWN THE LIST FASTER WHEN IM LOOKING FOR A REAL CACHE THATS WORTH THE HUNT. THANKS.