Shot Down In Flames

[Mooner]

I recently researched an historical area in NE Oklahoma for an educational cache which you can view here the jist of here:

 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronic...8/v018p266.html

 

I went out to the area and found that is was very visible from a few points but it was fenced off and was located very near a bridge (see geocaching rules on that). I then found that there was a small state park area which had a really nice monument dedicated to the Civil War battle as described the link above.

 

Well, there was no suitable place to hide the cache container and log book I had already prepared as the area was not available on foot and the park was without significant hiding spots and it was just ripe for complaints or vandals to ruin the container. So I made a virtual cache out of it which had the potential geocacher read the monument then drive past the area. Easy, interesting and informative as Oklahoma is not exactly rife with Civil War history.

 

Well it was rejected solely on the reason (I will paraphrase as I do not wish to mention any names or reveal anyone): "..It looks like this area could be used to hide a micro cache" and that "geocaching.com is no longer allowing caches like this without physical cache container". Bear in mind that this admin who rejected it does not live in this area thus has not visited my site.

 

I suppose I could have gone out and set up the cache container and could have hoped for the best but I did not. I gave up after some correspondence to the admin who flatly refused to post the cache. After reading several complaints about cachers being harassed, annoyed and approached on state or federal land I chose to drop it and move on to this forum.

 

Please don't get me wrong as I thoroughly enjoy geocaching.com and I am an active geocacher but this irritates me. There are many people who often enjoy an educational and easy virtual cache every once in a while.

 

I will end my post with a question to you all: Do virtual caches no longer exist? If they do then why was this one shot down for lack of a container?

Edited December 17, 2003 by Mooner

[+Johnnie Stalkers]

We just returned from Texas and did 12 virtuals along the way. (Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois and Indiana) Some where better than others but we REALLY REALLY enjoyed doing these. We where inspired by the caches in downtown Fort Worth and are researching doing something similiar here.

 

I can't imagine that virtuals are going away, they are a viable, enjoyable part of the game. They are also a GREAT way to explore and learn about an area, town, culture, etc.

Edited December 17, 2003 by Johnnie Stalkers

[+SamLowrey]

I don't understand the problem with Virtual Caches myself. I guess I don't participate often enough to uncloud the issue. I keep hearing about accusations that "every fire hydrant becomes a virtual" or some such hyperbole. I don't see it being that big of a problem.....

 

So, now we are encouraged to place physical caches in areas where there is surely going to be a problem. I'm not sure that is a good idea for the long term.

 

I suspect it was a political move to make cachers approach authorities (on bended knee, like a servant, no doubt) to beg them to put what THEY will see as a piece of junk on their property. This, again only a suspicion, was done to increase the visibility of the activity. If so, I disagree on many levels because I don't think popularizing the sport is going to bode well for it.

 

Anyway, I know the topic of VCs are talked to death so I will stop ranting.

 

Sorry it wasn't approved.

[Mooner]

I totally agree that there are some weak virtuals. I too have gone to some of them only to be disappointed.

 

But, as you stated some of them are really great and informative. I strove for just that in the creation of this one. It had history, beautiful territory, easy access and a quick drive from several large cities.

 

Thanks for the comments...

Edited December 17, 2003 by Mooner

[+Halden]

I have a virt and have no intention of ignoring them. There is quite a movement against them however...enter Criminal.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

So I made a virtual cache out of it which had the potential geocacher read the monument then drive past the area.

If they're supposed to drive somewhere, why not to the cache site?

You can easily encrypt the coordinates using information on the monument.

[+Stunod]

I recently researched an historical area in NE Oklahoma for an educational cache which you can view here the jist of here:

 

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronic...8/v018p266.html

 

I went out to the area and found that is was very visible from a few points but it was fenced off and was located very near a bridge (see geocaching rules on that). I then found that there was a small state park area which had a really nice monument dedicated to the Civil War battle as described the link above.

 

Well, there was no suitable place to hide the cache container and log book I had already prepared as the area was not available on foot and the park was without significant hiding spots and it was just ripe for complaints or vandals to ruin the container. So I made a virtual cache out of it which had the potential geocacher read the monument then drive past the area. Easy, interesting and informative as Oklahoma is not exactly rife with Civil War history.

 

Well it was rejected solely on the reason (I will paraphrase as I do not wish to mention any names or reveal anyone): "..It looks like this area could be used to hide a micro cache" and that "geocaching.com is no longer allowing caches like this without physical cache container". Bear in mind that this admin who rejected it does not live in this area thus has not visited my site.

 

I suppose I could have gone out and set up the cache container and could have hoped for the best but I did not. I gave up after some correspondence to the admin who flatly refused to post the cache. After reading several complaints about cachers being harassed, annoyed and approached on state or federal land I chose to drop it and move on to this forum.

 

Please don't get me wrong as I thoroughly enjoy geocaching.com and I am an active geocacher but this irritates me. There are many people who often enjoy an educational and easy virtual cache every once in a while.

 

I will end my post with a question to you all: Do virtual caches no longer exist? If they do then why was this one shot down for lack of a container?

Have you re-scouted the area for a micro? I'm sure you could find a creative way to hide one nearby, and use the info on the monument to calculate the location of the micro.

[+Johnnie Stalkers]

OK...I think this falls under the 'It's your game, play it the way you want' idea. Personally I do not like micros or letterboxes. I just don't see the fun in that, even though we rarely trade. (On a side note we accidently found the Cherokee Cowboy Letterbox in Mohawk Park in Tulsa while caching last week). But that is the great thing about this sport, WE CAN PLAY IT THE WAY WE WANT. If you don't like virts, don't do 'em. Pretty Simple. I can't see them going away.

[Mooner]

So I made a virtual cache out of it which had the potential geocacher read the monument then drive past the area.

If they're supposed to drive somewhere, why not to the cache site?

You can easily encrypt the coordinates using information on the monument.

Yes, this could have been done but it still would have been rejected as there is no physical cache container.

 

BTW, the monument IS the cache site...

[+parkrrrr]

If they're supposed to drive somewhere, why not to the cache site?

You can easily encrypt the coordinates using information on the monument.

The same argument could, of course, be applied to any currently approvable (i.e. verifiable) virtual, by the simple expedient of adding this to your cache description:

 

If the date on the monument is....

• Earlier than 1850, go to N 41° 5.212' W 85° 4.235'
  
• Between 1850 and 1860, go to N 41° 4.643' W 85° 3.347'
  
• Between 1860 and 1870, go to N 41° 2.475' W 85° 8.687'
  
• Later than 1870, go to N 41° 3.246' W 85° 1.457'
  

So any argument that contains "You can always make it a multi with a virtual first stage" is in fact an argument for the complete abolition of virtual caches.

 

(None of the above coordinates are of any use to anyone. Likely as not, they're all on private property. So if you find yourself in the vicinity of any of them, try to restrain your urge to go see what's there.)

[+Navdog]

BTW, the monument IS the cache site...

Who says the monument has to be the final cache site? Sounds like the battlefield area is pretty large, why not find another spot you mentioned that views the area and place a micro there. Good multis and micros take some extra work to set up.

 

Your profile shows you haven't found any multis, why not go out and hunt a few too get a feel for how well they can work?

Edited December 17, 2003 by Navdog

[Mooner]

If they're supposed to drive somewhere, why not to the cache site?

You can easily encrypt the coordinates using information on the monument.

The same argument could, of course, be applied to any currently approvable (i.e. verifiable) virtual, by the simple expedient of adding this to your cache description:

 

If the date on the monument is....

• Earlier than 1850, go to N 41° 5.212' W 85° 4.235'
  
• Between 1850 and 1860, go to N 41° 4.643' W 85° 3.347'
  
• Between 1860 and 1870, go to N 41° 2.475' W 85° 8.687'
  
• Later than 1870, go to N 41° 3.246' W 85° 1.457'
  

So any argument that contains "You can always make it a multi with a virtual first stage" is in fact an argument for the complete abolition of virtual caches.

 

(None of the above coordinates are of any use to anyone. Likely as not, they're all on private property. So if you find yourself in the vicinity of any of them, try to restrain your urge to go see what's there.)

You read my mind! I was just thinking of the fact that I had originally thought of duping the admins with some bogus multi cache scheme that would make the thing fly but still have no physical attributes. I then thought better of it as I would be chipping away at the integrity the hobby.

 

I decided that if geocaching.com won't approve it then I won't post it...until there is an alternative.

 

Hmmmm...I see a natural progression playing out here.

[Mooner]

BTW, the monument IS the cache site...

Who says the monument has to be the final cache site? Sounds like the battlefield area is pretty large, why not find another spot you mentioned that views the area and place a micro there. Good multis and micros take some extra work to set up.

 

Your profile shows you haven't found any multis, why not go out and hunt a few too get a feel for how well they can work?

True, I could have changed it and led the geocachers on a goosehunt to find a bag of rocks or something, but why do I have to do that when there is still a virtual cache option on the site?

 

The battleground is fenced off and the "horseshoe bend" area simply cannot be accessed.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

If they're supposed to drive somewhere, why not to the cache site?

You can easily encrypt the coordinates using information on the monument.

The same argument could, of course, be applied to any currently approvable (i.e. verifiable) virtual

Bingo!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The battleground is fenced off and the "horseshoe bend" area simply cannot be accessed.

Ok, so you can't place a cache on the battlefield (or horseshoe bend), and no one can retrieve it anyway. So you want to make a virtual of the view of the battlefield? Check the guidelines, a view is not a cache.

[Mooner]

The battleground is fenced off and the "horseshoe bend" area simply cannot be accessed.

Ok, so you can't place a cache on the battlefield (or horseshoe bend), and no one can retrieve it anyway. So you want to make a virtual of the view of the battlefield? Check the guidelines, a view is not a cache.

See previous post..."the monument IS the cache site"

[+rusty_tlc]

I was thinking about listing a few virtuals on my soon to be built web page. These V-Caches ...........................

Never mind.

[+hikemeister]

Without photos of the park, I realize that my input might be off base due to lack of information. However, it strikes me that even in a setting like this, you have the opportunity to do a small micro and still have the finder get the historical information. Why not have them read the information on the statue and use it to solve a puzzle that leads to the micro, hidden somewhere nearby. All you need is a park bench to hide a micro, either with a magnet or some velcro. Then it would be a mystery cache, preserving the historical aspect you want to emphasize, plus keeping the main idea of geocaching, which is to hunt for hidden items. The concept of geocaching is essentially treasure hunting -- a treasure, in the standard sense, is a box with something inside (log book and other things). I have a virtual cache, and if I was doing it now, would most likely have gone with a micro under a bench. I don't see how this would take anything away from your idea. As for the issue of having it stolen or otherwise damaged by non geocachers -- that is pretty typical -- very hard to avoid regardless of where you hide a cache.

 

I can also tell you from experience, that if you are clever enough, you can put your micro right out in plain sight and it will be overlooked except by those trying to find it. I have a series of these in Florida, called INSIGHT, and they really have proved this point.

 

I'd give it a try.

[ju66l3r]

I think what you are all losing sight of is:

 

Jeremy hates virtuals.

 

Since this will always be true, then until the reins of this one horse carriage are passed to someone else or we all go use a different site, there will be no virtuals of this nature on this website. The only virtuals will be 300 miles inside of a NPS park. There are a billion cool places to send people to in this world to see something really cool but since you can hide a pill capsule almost anywhere near one of them making people do math on the back of their hand based on the letters in "Kookamunga National Monument" and the number 42 instead of focusing solely on the history or heritage, we're just not going to see it here any time soon.

 

I think the next virtual I want to place will have a gift shop and the offset coordinates will lead you to its front door....."took lady liberty pencil sharpener, left $4.53".

[+mtn-man]

You read my mind! I was just thinking of the fact that I had originally thought of duping the admins with some bogus multi cache scheme that would make the thing fly but still have no physical attributes.

[Mooner]

You read my mind! I was just thinking of the fact that I had originally thought of duping the admins with some bogus multi cache scheme that would make the thing fly but still have no physical attributes.

I see you missed part of the quote...that would be the end portion.

 

Interesting, as that end complemented the portion you posted. The full quote would have eliminated the need for the silly faces....but then you wouldn't have posted anything. Right?

 

tisk-tisk

[+welch]

You read my mind! I was just thinking of the fact that I had originally thought of duping the admins with some bogus multi cache scheme that would make the thing fly but still have no physical attributes.

I see you missed part of the quote...that would be the end portion.

 

Interesting, as that end complemented the portion you posted. The full quote would have eliminated the need for the silly faces....but then you wouldn't have posted anything. Right?

 

tisk-tisk

[+JMBella]

You read my mind! I was just thinking of the fact that I had originally thought of duping the admins with some bogus multi cache scheme that would make the thing fly but still have no physical attributes. I then thought better of it as I would be chipping away at the integrity the hobby.

 

I think you lost me on that one. Making the 1st part a multi to get the coords for the 2nd part isn't a bogus scheme. You won't duping anyone. It's a completely feasible solution to your quandary.

 

So any argument that contains "You can always make it a multi with a virtual first stage" is in fact an argument for the complete abolition of virtual caches.

 

That may be true, but for the sake of this argument Mooner's goal is to get people to visit the site. I think the fact that there is a actual cache at the end of it all would just add to the experience.

Edited December 17, 2003 by JMBella

[Jeremy]

I think what you are all losing sight of is:

 

Jeremy hates virtuals.

pah. Why would I have introduced them in the first place? Sheesh

[+Johnnie Stalkers]

I think what you are all losing sight of is:

 

Jeremy hates virtuals.

pah. Why would I have introduced them in the first place? Sheesh

Just to mess with us.

[+WalruZ]

really, if there's good history there, do this.

 

write up what you want people to get from the site in a small pamphlet. The pamphlet has the corrdinates of the monument and other vantage points. As they go to these coordinates you can impart information and present coordinate questions - "if you see this, then A = 4" such as we are all familiar with. The coordinate questions eventually lead to a final physical cache with swag.

 

print out a few.

 

hide them in a smallish physical cache somewhat removed from the monument.

 

Hide the larger physical cache nearby, but not close enough nearby so that it will be found accidentally.

 

Result. cacher visits 1st cache, takes pamphlet, has an interesting cache experience, eventually finds physical cache, and at your request returns pamphlet to initial cache for others to use. (you hope) You actually get to deliver double cache-goodness this way, as 2 physical caches are involved and the visitor comes away with more than just "it's a statue. it was erected in 1867 for some reason".

 

My beef with most of these "historical" caches are that they don't really convey all that much. They lead you to the site but then let you down. Not everyone travels with the cache page. Do this and put the information in their hands while they're standing on the site.

[+yumitori]

Just to mess with us.

Ah, paranoia. Cool. (Yeah, I can be silly, too.)

 

Mooner, why did you wish to place a virtual there? To bring people to the monument, wasn't it?

 

So all of the suggestions to make it part of a simple multicache accomplish that. You take folks to the park, they get some info from the monument, that leads them to a physical cache.

 

Why not do this, and satisfy both your desire for a cache here and geocaching.com's desire to encourage more physical caches? I'm missing the reason for your opposition.

[+Snoogans]

I think what you are all losing sight of is:

 

Jeremy hates virtuals.

pah. Why would I have introduced them in the first place? Sheesh

Glad to hear you say that. Will virts and locationless caches get their own section like benchmarks? I am all for that.

 

I have one lame virt and one cool virt already.

 

I have a pretty neat idea for a couple locationless caches, but no place to post them as of yet. Maybe my own web page eventually.

 

There was an announcement back in March (I think?) to hold off on new locationless caches until May or June. By July virtuals had gone the way of the dodo too and still no official word.

 

I have logged 40, or so, virts and 1 benchmark. I would be happy to have everything counted separatly to be able to post V & L-caches here instead of my own webpage.

 

Will there be official word on these items in the near future?

 

Sn gans

Edited December 17, 2003 by Snoogans

[+Marky]

BTW, the monument IS the cache site...

Who says the monument has to be the final cache site? Sounds like the battlefield area is pretty large, why not find another spot you mentioned that views the area and place a micro there. Good multis and micros take some extra work to set up.

 

Your profile shows you haven't found any multis, why not go out and hunt a few too get a feel for how well they can work?

True, I could have changed it and led the geocachers on a goosehunt to find a bag of rocks or something, but why do I have to do that when there is still a virtual cache option on the site?

 

The battleground is fenced off and the "horseshoe bend" area simply cannot be accessed.

In your original post, you mention you had a cache container and a log book. Why bring up the ridiculous notion of "a bag of rocks" when you had a perfectly good cache with you? I don't get it. Maybe you haven't done enough multi-caches that have monuments or plaques as waypoints. They are lots of fun and usually interesting (in my opinion).

 

--Marky

Edited December 17, 2003 by Marky

[+mtn-man]

You read my mind! I was just thinking of the fact that I had originally thought of duping the admins with some bogus multi cache scheme that would make the thing fly but still have no physical attributes.

I see you missed part of the quote...that would be the end portion.

 

Interesting, as that end complemented the portion you posted. The full quote would have eliminated the need for the silly faces....but then you wouldn't have posted anything. Right?

 

tisk-tisk

Hmmm... actually, you would have been duping the admins and every cacher that went to find your "cache". The fact that you consider duping everyone just to get a virtual approved for yet another monument is pretty sad in my opinion.

 

And you said "tisk-tisk" to me?

[+Team Og Rof A Klaw]

I think what you are all losing sight of is:

 

Jeremy hates virtuals.

pah. Why would I have introduced them in the first place? Sheesh

Uh, Markwell...

 

Hans-Georg Michna created the first virt, AFAICT.

[Mooner]

You read my mind! I was just thinking of the fact that I had originally thought of duping the admins with some bogus multi cache scheme that would make the thing fly but still have no physical attributes.

I see you missed part of the quote...that would be the end portion.

 

Interesting, as that end complemented the portion you posted. The full quote would have eliminated the need for the silly faces....but then you wouldn't have posted anything. Right?

 

tisk-tisk

Hmmm... actually, you would have been duping the admins and every cacher that went to find your "cache". The fact that you consider duping everyone just to get a virtual approved for yet another monument is pretty sad in my opinion.

 

And you said "tisk-tisk" to me?

Once again I suggest you read the quote as I actually said it as opposed to your version.

[+9Key]

As the reviewer that archived the "point of interest" in question, let me note that mooner's original argument was that this area is a national monument and that traditional caches are not allowed.

The monument is *not* a NPS site.

 

"Duping the admins" is not a great way to start off here.

 

Edit - added more stuff

Edited December 17, 2003 by 9Key

[+mtn-man]

You read my mind! I was just thinking of the fact that I had originally thought of duping the admins with some bogus multi cache scheme that would make the thing fly but still have no physical attributes. I then thought better of it as I would be chipping away at the integrity the hobby.

OK, there is the whole quote for ya'.

 

My statement still applies:

 

"The fact that you consider duping everyone just to get a virtual approved for yet another monument is pretty sad in my opinion."

 

I am glad you "then thought better of it", but the fact that you considered duping your local cachers and the admins is still very sad. I would never dupe my local cachers by saying I had placed a multi with a traditional at the end when in fact I had placed no traditional or just a bag of rocks just so I could get them to a civil war monument.

[Mooner]

As the reviewer that archived the "point of interest" in question, let me note that mooner's original argument was that this area is a national monument and that traditional caches are not allowed.

The monument is *not* a NPS site.

 

"Duping the admins" is not a great way to start off here.

 

Edit - added more stuff

OK....I'm spent and I will submit to the powers that be.

 

I'll drop it (again) as opposed to hiding a pill bottle in an area that, in my opinion, really can't support it without it being lost, looted or stolen.

 

No more virtuals for me or attempts at creating one. Perhaps I'll go back to the area and come up with a set of points in a safer place to hide something of size with related materials to the site.

 

The dupe thing has been taken out of context as it was meant to point out that this action might come out of denying what seem to be valid caches. If you read the quote in full you'll see that I quickly ignored the thought of doing so for the sake of the hobby. I mentioned it because others might not ignore the thought and frustrating caches may result.

 

In conclusion I'd like to say I appreciate what the admins do here and it must be hard to decide who gets a cache through and who doesn't. After seeing some caches that did make it and now seeing some that didn't I can only conclude there is a reason for it and I hope the quality of caches increases as a result.

[+carleenp]

Without trying to enter the whole argument about whether virtuals should be easier to approve or have their own area etc, I will say this: I generally quit visiting virtuals after I saw several that I felt were not worth the special drive just to see a monument. It got where I couldn't know if my trip was going to be worth it or not, so I figured why bother? But I would still go see some monuments if there was also a physical cache there.

 

For example, here is a cache that is simply a monument that I would never have bothered to drive to just to log a virtual, but did go to in order to log a cache. I also enjoyed reading the monument while I was there. By the way, the place was pretty darn barren and the owner still managed to hide a regular cache there instead of a micro, which made it even better in my mind.

 

So the point is that by hiding a micro at the spot, you could actually get more people to stop by anyway. It would have to be pretty barren there to not be able to do a micro. As someone pointed out earlier, all you need is a park bench, a painted altoids tin, and some magnets. Stick it under the bench or to the back of a sign (that normally would not be seen from the back) and it will likely stay there for some time. Even stick it to a sign or light pole in plain sight. Muggles tend to not notice those. I have had one of those in a park for several months now.

Edited December 17, 2003 by carleenp

[Moun10Bike]

I think what you are all losing sight of is:

 

Jeremy hates virtuals.

pah. Why would I have introduced them in the first place? Sheesh

Uh, Markwell...

 

Hans-Georg Michna created the first virt, AFAICT.

I don't believe Jeremy is saying that he invented the concept of the virtual cache, but that he implemented them as a cache type when creating Geocaching.com.

[+NJ Admin]

Well, I'm a cache reviewer, and I'm not in OK, but I can look on a map and see your proposed virtual is in Mack Taylor Park. I can then Google that and find all sorts of info about the park, even pictures that look like there are all sorts of places to hide a physical cache.

[+9Key]

hiding a pill bottle in an area that, in my opinion, really can't support it without it being lost, looted or stolen.

You'd be surprised how many different ways there are to hide a cache. It takes a little practice.

 

I'd recommend finding a few more caches and you'll get a better *feel* for the game.

[+mtn-man]

Thanks for your "in conclusion" statement Mooner. Nicely said.

 

A note on the cache by Hans-Georg Michna: Jeremy approved that cache himself. Since he approved it I guess that was his way of introducing the concept of virtual caches to the site, as Moun10Bike said. He could have archived the cache but chose to approve it so others could see it.

[+Sparky-Watts]

I generally quit visiting virtuals after I saw several that I felt were not worth the special drive just to see a monument. It got where I couldn't know if my trip was going to be worth it or not, so I figured why bother? But I would still go see some monuments if there was also a physical cache there.

At least most of you have mentioned virts that are of some historical or esthetic significance, unlike several around my area including a radio tower and a couple of road signs......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....................

[+Team Og Rof A Klaw]

A note on the cache by Hans-Georg Michna:  Jeremy approved that cache himself.  Since he approved it I guess that was his way of introducing the concept of virtual caches to the site, as Moun10Bike said.  He could have archived the cache but chose to approve it so others could see it.

That'd be inconsistent with Michna's assertion that he placed the cache in 1999 -- a year before selective availability was turned off.

 

An early Usenet posting here:

From: Hans-Georg Michna (hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com)

Subject: Re: Another recreational GPS activity!!

Newsgroups: sci.geo.satellite-nav

Date: 2000-12-16 04:23:23 PST

 

"Jerry L. Wahl" <jwahl@qubicle.com> wrote:

 

>Like geo-cache-ing, this group of nuts have found yet another way to use

>GPS for fun.

>

>  http://www.confluence.org/us/index.html

 

Jerry,

 

he, I invented this! I placed my first (virtual) geocache on

N/S 0° E 36°. A confluence at the same time!

 

Too bad I didn't take any picture. Will rectify this next June.

 

Hans-Georg

 

--

No mail, please.

 

And the later one:

 

From: Hans-Georg Michna (hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com)

Subject: First equatorial cache found - also first virtual cache

Newsgroups: sci.geo.satellite-nav

Date: 2002-02-28 02:51:37 PST

 

The first geocache on the equator has been found. This is also a

virtual cache---no box is hidden there, because the area (and

its inhabitants) does not allow this. Instead the virtual cache

consists of a text carved into the bark of a tree that happens

to grow at 0° N/S, 36° E.

 

I received an email yesterday that correctly identified the text

of the virtual cache. Details will be announced at

http://www.michna.com/gps.htm in a few days. The persons who

made it to the cache are identified as KLifeDad, two

accompanying missionaries, and another accompanying visitor from

the US. They braved snakes and other hostile environmental

conditions to finally reach the tree and read the secret code

which proves their success, because hitherto I was the only

person who know what I carved into the bark of the tree on a

beautiful day in May 1999. Yes, it took the better part of three

years until the virtual cache was found for the first time.

 

Honestly, I didn't believe anybody would ever go to that remote

virtual cache.

 

Hans-Georg

 

--

No mail, please.

Edited December 17, 2003 by Team Og Rof A Klaw

[+DustyJacket]

I "trained up" on virtuals before going out to look for my first physical cache.

Unfortunately, I seem to have ignore the other virtuals around here since then.

 

I recently took the easy way out and set up a multi cache with the first leg a memorial where you took parts of dates associated with certain people to assemble the coordinates for the actual cache.

[Moun10Bike]

Hmmm...according to Hans-Georg's own web page, he created the virtual on 6/15/2000, which is consistent with the date he put on the cache page.

Edited December 17, 2003 by Moun10Bike

[ju66l3r]

I think what you are all losing sight of is:

 

Jeremy hates virtuals.

pah. Why would I have introduced them in the first place? Sheesh

To obviously hype up the forums.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I think what you are all losing sight of is:

 

Jeremy hates virtuals.

pah. Why would I have introduced them in the first place? Sheesh

To obviously hype up the forums.

Do you think the forums need to be hyped?

[+sept1c_tank]

Do you think the forums need to be hyped?

Now that's funny!

[+Renegade Knight]

Virtual caches are fine. They are not broken in any way. I don't like benchmarks but think it's great that so many people get a kick out of them. That this site has a bias against them is just silly. It is however their choice since they run this listing site.

 

One hell of a lot of geocachers do like virtuals, and yet more do them if they are in the area even if they are not their favorite. This is a key point. Geocachers like them. Not all, but enough. This site dislikes them enough to reject them unless they are the last viable option. What this points out is that geocachers and this site are not always on the same page on an issue.

[+Team Og Rof A Klaw]

Hmmm...according to Hans-Georg's own web page, he created the virtual on 6/15/2000, which is consistent with the date he put on the cache page.

He might have carved the tree in 1999 and registered the virt in 2000.

 

The truth is out there... it just doesn't want any email.

Edited December 18, 2003 by Team Og Rof A Klaw

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Virtual caches are fine. They are not broken in any way. I don't like benchmarks but think it's great that so many people get a kick out of them. That this site has a bias against them is just silly. It is however their choice since they run this listing site.

 

One hell of a lot of geocachers do like virtuals, and yet more do them if they are in the area even if they are not their favorite. This is a key point. Geocachers like them. Not all, but enough. This site dislikes them enough to reject them unless they are the last viable option. What this points out is that geocachers and this site are not always on the same page on an issue.

Reminds me of the SpiderMan movie where the board of directors plans on firing the guy that started the company. Of course, he went postal and ended up getting killed, but that's not the point here. The point is your customers decide what they want from your business. If you don't keep up, you'll go under.

 

That said, I'm one of those that only 'finds' a virtual if it's on the way somewhere or on the top of my nearest unfound caches list.