compass_bearing_north Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 First see This Post I don't get it. Any virtuals I place don't get approved. What's going on? Any comments? Quote Link to comment
+CO Admin Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 (edited) First see This Post I don't get it. Any virtuals I place don't get approved. What's going on? Any comments? One comment. Without examples of your virts that did not get approved, which is what the other poster did. We have no information to comment on. Can you be more specifics. Cite examples. list correspondence. Give us some information to work on. Edited December 21, 2003 by CO Admin Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 Well... First there were virtual caches and this site listed them. Then they came out with the coffeetable book rule. It had to be a dadgum good virtual to get approved and you had to prove it. Then they came out with the new rule of not being able to place a traditional cache there before you could do a virtual. Then they added, that if you could include it in a multi cache then you should. In other words the site should just say "We do not at this time approve virtual caches" or do a moratorium like they did with locationless caches. They would take less flack over it and members who honestly just try to have fun and place some caches wouldn't have false hopes. Getting a virtual approved does happen and my hat is off the the approver who allow them. However it's a long shot and the odds are not getting better. Quote Link to comment
+Doc-Dean Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 Just stick another worthless traditional or micro in the location and hope that most people will appreciate the virtual you had intended to show them... Quote Link to comment
+datum Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 Without rehashing what has already been said about the quality of some caches, it would be ashamed to clutter up an area with another film canister or Tupperware container when a good virtual has the merits to stand on its own. The problem being that everyone has their own definition of what “good” is. I always felt the “Coffee Table Book” guideline was the clearest, most reasonable and understood (by most). Quote Link to comment
+Polgara Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 Make the cache a multi cache. Use the virt as a stepping stone in one of the legs with necessary info to be obtained from it in order to find the final cache. This will do 3 things for you... the cache stands a better chance at approval; it will be more appealing to cachers that avoid virts if there is eventually a log to sign, and it will give you opportunity to share more info about the subject of the virt. GOod Luck! Quote Link to comment
compass_bearing_north Posted December 21, 2003 Author Share Posted December 21, 2003 First see This Post I don't get it. Any virtuals I place don't get approved. What's going on? Any comments? One comment. Without examples of your virts that did not get approved, which is what the other poster did. We have no information to comment on. Can you be more specifics. Cite examples. list correspondence. Give us some information to work on. Click Here Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 (edited) Just stick another worthless traditional or micro in the location and hope that most people will appreciate the virtual you had intended to show them... If you want someone to enjoy the virtual site as much as you do, good luck. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I'm more likely to read a plaque or marker that I'm not just trying to get information off of. I can get dates and places without having to read the whole thing. I'll spend more time there if there's a container. Edit: spelling Edited December 22, 2003 by Team GPSaxophone Quote Link to comment
+bons Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 Click Here FYI: Only you (and probably some admin type people) can view your unapproved caches. Quote Link to comment
+CO Admin Posted December 21, 2003 Share Posted December 21, 2003 Click Here FYI: Only you (and probably some admin type people) can view your unapproved caches. That is correct. You will need to at least post the description here so that other can judge the merits of your cache. Quote Link to comment
+CO Admin Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 First see This Post I don't get it. Any virtuals I place don't get approved. What's going on? Any comments? This one of yours got approved Other than this one and the one currently in question, how many have you tried to get approved? Quote Link to comment
+Doc-Dean Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 If you want someone to enjoy the virtual site as much as you do, good luck. You can lead a gorse to water but you can't make him drink. I'm more likely to read a plaque or marker that I'm not just trying to get information off of. I can get dates and places without having to read the whole thing. I'll spend more time there if there's a container. It is getting tougher to lead a gorse to water these days, thanks for pointing that out Saxy! Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 If you want someone to enjoy the virtual site as much as you do, good luck. You can lead a gorse to water but you can't make him drink. I'm more likely to read a plaque or marker that I'm not just trying to get information off of. I can get dates and places without having to read the whole thing. I'll spend more time there if there's a container. It is getting tougher to lead a gorse to water these days, thanks for pointing that out Saxy! And thank you for pointing out my spelling mistake. I've fixed it now, happy? Quote Link to comment
+Doc-Dean Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Sorry... didn't mean to get your gorse!! Quote Link to comment
+Sparky-Watts Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Sorry... didn't mean to get your gorse!! All right, boys, settle down or the purple gorse is gonna tell you the thing about the big sandbox! Quote Link to comment
+erik88l-r Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 (edited) As a cache reviewer I can access the cache in question. The cache page says: Henry W. Coe State Park. There are many ways to get to the site, though the trail is more gradual than the road. The coordinates mark a campsite, but, if you dare, desend down the fire road and make a right at the fire road junction and travel to a meadow. The question: What is the name of the camsite at the meadow? E-mail me your answer, do not post it here! During the day it's beautiful, but at night watch out for the headless horseman. The cost, $2 a night per person. Visit coepark.org for maps and info. Beware! The cache reviewer put it on hold and posted this note Nov. 30: Hi, I'm reviewing your virtual cache submission, and I'm going to need a bit more information. The cache has been temporarily archived while we discuss it, and will be un-archived and approved as soon as I can determine if it fits within the guidelines. Guidelines and requirements for virtual caches can be found here: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#addvirt When reviewing a virtual cache we are looking for a number of criteria. The first and most important is why not a physical cache? In many cases, a micro cache can be readily placed at or near the same spot submitted as a virtual cache. This is a state park that is primarily forested area. Go hide a physical cache! If a physical cache is not possible at the site, the next question we ask is, can info from the site be used as a waypoint in a multi-cache? Often there is a nearby location where a physical cache can be placed. Dates or other numbers from a monument could be used in calculating the coordinates to the offset physical cache. That would not only bring people to your special spot but give them a physical cache to find as well. A great example of a multi-cache that visits several virtual sites and concludes with a large container is here: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCGX16 The next thing, in the rare case when a physical or multi-cache is not possible, is for it to pass the 'WOW' test. If I go to this site will it 'WOW' me? A ''campsite'' is far too mundane to pass this test. In addition, a virtual cache must have one or more questions about the site that the finder must answer (in an email to you) to confirm the find. I really believe that a traditional or multi-cache would work well here. Give it a little thought and I'm sure you can come up with a viable solution. Once you have placed a cache here, you can update this same cache page, then email me and I will be happy to review the cache again. You may email me at hemlock@geocachingadmin.com or via the link to my profile on the archive log. Please be sure to include the cache name and waypoint GC# or better yet, the URL of the cache page. NOTE: If you reply directly to this email, you MUST change the To email address to hemlock@geocachingadmin.com otherwise the communication will not be received. Thank you for your understanding, Hemlock Volunteer Cache Reviewer To which the cache owner posted this note the next day, Dec 1: Please read over again Possibly refering to the addition of the verification question to the text. erik - geocaching.com admin Edited December 22, 2003 by erik88l-r Quote Link to comment
+Doc-Dean Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 The next thing, in the rare case when a physical or multi-cache is not possible, is for it to pass the 'WOW' test. If I go to this site will it 'WOW' me? A ''campsite'' is far too mundane to pass this test. Did he mention it was the Hooter's Campsite Training grounds?? Would that be Wow-sufficient?? Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 The next thing, in the rare case when a physical or multi-cache is not possible, is for it to pass the 'WOW' test. If I go to this site will it 'WOW' me? A ''campsite'' is far too mundane to pass this test. Did he mention it was the Hooter's Campsite Training grounds?? Would that be Wow-sufficient?? Do you have the coordinates for that, Doc? I'd go there even if it was only a virtual cache... Quote Link to comment
+IV_Warrior Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 A ''campsite'' is far too mundane to pass this test. Did he mention it was the Hooter's Campsite Training grounds?? Would that be Wow-sufficient?? That'd be wow enough for me, what's the coords? Quote Link to comment
+yumitori Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Based on the information provided by Erik, I can certainly see why this particular cache was not approved. I have no problem with virtuals, so that's not an issue for me. But why would I bother hunting for this one? What's so interesting about this location? (Ladies with large breasts aside, possibly.) Why 'hide' a virtual here instead of a physical cache? In a nutshell, these are the questions you need to answer. Granted, some folks could ask what's so interesting about signing a little spiral notebook found in a piece of tupperware hidden under a log, but if you already geocaching hopefully you have an answer for that... Quote Link to comment
compass_bearing_north Posted December 22, 2003 Author Share Posted December 22, 2003 First see This Post I don't get it. Any virtuals I place don't get approved. What's going on? Any comments? This one of yours got approved Other than this one and the one currently in question, how many have you tried to get approved? That was almost a year ago. Things have changed. Also, NCFLYERS (the aprover) is very leanient. Quote Link to comment
compass_bearing_north Posted December 22, 2003 Author Share Posted December 22, 2003 As a cache reviewer I can access the cache in question. The cache page says: Henry W. Coe State Park. There are many ways to get to the site, though the trail is more gradual than the road. The coordinates mark a campsite, but, if you dare, desend down the fire road and make a right at the fire road junction and travel to a meadow. The question: What is the name of the camsite at the meadow? E-mail me your answer, do not post it here! During the day it's beautiful, but at night watch out for the headless horseman. The cost, $2 a night per person. Visit coepark.org for maps and info. Beware! The cache reviewer put it on hold and posted this note Nov. 30: Hi, I'm reviewing your virtual cache submission, and I'm going to need a bit more information. The cache has been temporarily archived while we discuss it, and will be un-archived and approved as soon as I can determine if it fits within the guidelines. Guidelines and requirements for virtual caches can be found here: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#addvirt When reviewing a virtual cache we are looking for a number of criteria. The first and most important is why not a physical cache? In many cases, a micro cache can be readily placed at or near the same spot submitted as a virtual cache. This is a state park that is primarily forested area. Go hide a physical cache! If a physical cache is not possible at the site, the next question we ask is, can info from the site be used as a waypoint in a multi-cache? Often there is a nearby location where a physical cache can be placed. Dates or other numbers from a monument could be used in calculating the coordinates to the offset physical cache. That would not only bring people to your special spot but give them a physical cache to find as well. A great example of a multi-cache that visits several virtual sites and concludes with a large container is here: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCGX16 The next thing, in the rare case when a physical or multi-cache is not possible, is for it to pass the 'WOW' test. If I go to this site will it 'WOW' me? A ''campsite'' is far too mundane to pass this test. In addition, a virtual cache must have one or more questions about the site that the finder must answer (in an email to you) to confirm the find. I really believe that a traditional or multi-cache would work well here. Give it a little thought and I'm sure you can come up with a viable solution. Once you have placed a cache here, you can update this same cache page, then email me and I will be happy to review the cache again. You may email me at hemlock@geocachingadmin.com or via the link to my profile on the archive log. Please be sure to include the cache name and waypoint GC# or better yet, the URL of the cache page. NOTE: If you reply directly to this email, you MUST change the To email address to hemlock@geocachingadmin.com otherwise the communication will not be received. Thank you for your understanding, Hemlock Volunteer Cache Reviewer To which the cache owner posted this note the next day, Dec 1: Please read over again Possibly refering to the addition of the verification question to the text. erik - geocaching.com admin Yes, I edited it. But still, no reply, not approved. Maybe you could approve it for me. Quote Link to comment
+CO Admin Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 First see This Post I don't get it. Any virtuals I place don't get approved. What's going on? Any comments? This one of yours got approved Other than this one and the one currently in question, how many have you tried to get approved? That was almost a year ago. Things have changed. Also, NCFLYERS (the aprover) is very leanient. Other than this one and the one currently in question, how many have you tried to get approved? Quote Link to comment
+yumitori Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Yes, I edited it. But still, no reply, not approved. Maybe you could approve it for me. Um, are you actually reading the responses to this thread? Quote Link to comment
+9Key Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 I don't get it. Why would you "hide" a virtual in a state park? There are traditional caches in the park, so permission must not be the issue. Quote Link to comment
+DublinJeepers Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 The next thing, in the rare case when a physical or multi-cache is not possible, is for it to pass the 'WOW' test. If I go to this site will it 'WOW' me? A ''campsite'' is far too mundane to pass this test. Did he mention it was the Hooter's Campsite Training grounds?? Would that be Wow-sufficient?? I created a Hooters Training Camp traditional cache, but Admin didn't think the actual cache location was "Family" friendly (besides the fact if you got the wrong girl there was a LOT of explaining to do) so they requested I change it to a virtual cache instead. G Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 The next thing, in the rare case when a physical or multi-cache is not possible, is for it to pass the 'WOW' test. If I go to this site will it 'WOW' me? A ''campsite'' is far too mundane to pass this test. Did he mention it was the Hooter's Campsite Training grounds?? Would that be Wow-sufficient?? I created a Hooters Training Camp traditional cache, but Admin didn't think the actual cache location was "Family" friendly (besides the fact if you got the wrong girl there was a LOT of explaining to do) so they requested I change it to a virtual cache instead. G Either way, there's a box there, right? Should I go retrieve it? Quote Link to comment
+GrizzlyJohn Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 For the 1000th time can TPTB just be honest about virtuals? Just say you don't think that fits your vision of GeoCaching and take it somewhere else. Just say that people who hide and find virtuals are not doing real GeoCaching. Just say that you know what is best for the GeoCaching community and the rest of us are mere peons that you allow to come on this site from time to time and be dictated to. Why should a person have to hide some kind of container if they don't want to? If they want to make it a virtual it is their choice. If you don't want to go after virtuals then don't. What is the problem with that? To be honest I don't think I would go out of my way to go after this virtual, it really does not sound too interesting, but that is me. If someone wants to go after it I don't think the fact that I or anybody else does not want to do it should stop someone else from doing so. I have always seen this issue as a bunch of GeoCaching snobs who look down their noses at virtuals. It is a question of choice. But there are those that feel so superior and feel it is their right (and actually that they are the only ones who know what is right) to tell the rest of the GeoCaching community what kinds of caches they should set up. From my observations it is many of the same group of people have their noses way up the backend of TPTB. Sorry I forgot for just a minute that this is geocaching.com -- "The Offical Global GPS Cache Hunt Site". The place where a very small group of people that did not even make up the game feel they are the Gods of GeoCaching and now will dictate the rules. Get your collective heads out of the sand (or wherever you stick them) and see that this has all grown beyond your very narrow minded vision of how the game is played. This is not in any way a swing at the folks that approve the caches. They are just following the rules as they have been laid out for them. It is not their fault. Don't blame them. Direct your anger at the real cause of the problems. Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Take a deep breath, John... I don't mind virtuals being approved for those that like them. I just don't want that virtual to 'block' a traditional cache from being placed within 0.1 miles of it. I think most of us 'virtual haters' feel the same way. I'll log a virtual if it meets one of these three criteria: On my nearest unfound caches page Close to another cache If I just happen to be going by and have the time to stop. Quote Link to comment
+Doc-Dean Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 For the 1000th time can TPTB just be honest about virtuals? ...snipped... Tell it like it is brother!! Quote Link to comment
+GrizzlyJohn Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 I just don't want that virtual to 'block' a traditional cache from being placed within 0.1 miles of it. I think most of us 'virtual haters' feel the same way. And that is the point. Because you feel that "traditional" caches are some how more important or better than virtuals. That is OK. You have every right to feel that way. But I just see it as a cache is a cache is a cache. I think the person that places a virtual feels it is important and they are contributing to the community in their own way. That sort of thinking says to those that have placed virtuals that they are not as important in the GeoCaching community. Becuase their silly virtuals have blocked a very small circle on this earth where a "real" cache can't be placed. I have seen virtuals that are very well done and "traditionals" that are garbage. Of course, the reverse is true as well. And what makes a good or bad cache is up to the person making the call. A "traditional" cache that someone places in that area may be a very bad cache, in some people's opinion, but they did it just to work within the rules. That still "blocks" the area from any other cache. Besides who made the 0.1 mile rule? Quote Link to comment
+Doc-Dean Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 The 0.1 mile rule is strictly a geocaching.com rule. You can place a cache within it if you want but you won't be able to list it on gc.com. Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 I just don't want that virtual to 'block' a traditional cache from being placed within 0.1 miles of it. I think most of us 'virtual haters' feel the same way. And that is the point. Because you feel that "traditional" caches are some how more important or better than virtuals. No, it's because I don't enjoy hunting historial markers. If so, I would look for benchmarks too. Virtuals don't give me the sense of 'completion' that I get with finding a container. I know I've found the right spot if there's a container there. Not so with a virtual. 'Well, there is a marker here, but is it the right one? I see another over there...' It has nothing to do with one kind being superior. Quote Link to comment
+Doc-Dean Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 I just don't want that virtual to 'block' a traditional cache from being placed within 0.1 miles of it. I think most of us 'virtual haters' feel the same way. And that is the point. Because you feel that "traditional" caches are some how more important or better than virtuals. No, it's because I don't enjoy hunting historial markers. If so, I would look for benchmarks too. Virtuals don't give me the sense of 'completion' that I get with finding a container. I know I've found the right spot if there's a container there. Not so with a virtual. 'Well, there is a marker here, but is it the right one? I see another over there...' It has nothing to do with one kind being superior. Being a forum posting god doesn't make you feel superior enough?? Quote Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 The problem you are having is that you are trying to place the cache in the San Francisco Bay area, the approver for this area does not allow virtual caches. Quote Link to comment
ju66l3r Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 No, it's because I don't enjoy hunting historial markers. If so, I would look for benchmarks too. Virtuals don't give me the sense of 'completion' that I get with finding a container. I know I've found the right spot if there's a container there. Not so with a virtual. 'Well, there is a marker here, but is it the right one? I see another over there...' It has nothing to do with one kind being superior. I do enjoy hunting historical markers. I do occasionally spot benchmarks. Virtuals do give me the same sense of completion as with finding a 35 mm film canister. I've never been to a virtual where I didn't know if I found the right spot, since I have to answer a validation question or the view has been amazing. So, why am I being penalized? The *best* argument that I've heard against virtuals was that people were waypointing dead animals or some nonsense like that and it was getting to be too much. Well, that's why we have approvers, isn't it? I can't waypoint a cardboard shoebox with a FTF prize of a dead rat and no logbook and call it a cache. The idea that virtuals would decrease prime caching space because of the 0.1 mile rule is also equally poor. First, most virtuals are not hidden deep in the 100 Acre Woods. They are there to highlight something impressive and 500 feet from that in all directions is usually a viewing area. If you can't walk another few hundred feet and find somewhere to put a box, then it's not likely there was anywhere inside of the circle either. Second, who says that virtuals have to impose on the traditional cache's 0.1 mile radii? The only good argument I can think of against virtuals would be that most people who do not want to hunt them can not remove them from their searches (unless using a PQ). No one's preferences on how or what to safely cache should invade on everyone else's ability to also safely cache. A filter can be easily created for the searches (we already filter by found/not-found) and everyone could be happy. Quote Link to comment
+Sparky-Watts Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 I agree with one point that juggler made.....if we're going to have virts, we should have the ability to filter them from traditionals to keep them off our lists, if we chose to do so. Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 I agree with one point that juggler made.....if we're going to have virts, we should have the ability to filter them from traditionals to keep them off our lists, if we chose to do so. hear, hear! Quote Link to comment
+NJ Admin Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 The problem you are having is that you are trying to place the cache in the San Francisco Bay area, the approver for this area does not allow virtual caches. When you make a statement like that, either tell the truth, or lie about something harder to check on. I counted about 75 virtuals approved in California in the last 6 months, in all parts of the state, and by both California cache reviewers. If you want to change your comment to something more like: The problem you are having is that you are trying to place the cache in the San Francisco Bay area, the approver for this area does not allow caches that do not meet the guidelines for posting on geocaching.com. then at least you would be telling the truth. Quote Link to comment
+Team Tecmage Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 (edited) This thread has turned toward debating the worth of Virtual caches (yet again). By reading some of the other threads, a few of things should be really clear- 1) most Geocachers are not posting in the forums, so 2) "most" Geocachers are NOT weighing in on this or any issue debated in the forums, therefore 3) we have a vocal minority of Geocachers pushing the "traditional" Geocaching argument to kill virts. "Traditional" is usually a term used when people do not like change. Don't you think that talking about tradition in an activity less than four years old is a bit odd? I think a couple of situations are fueling overreaction. Go find a cache! Edited December 23, 2003 by Team Tecmage Quote Link to comment
dboggny Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 team techmage is SOOOO correct. i have made that argument before, thank your for also weighing in. I like to do verts when i am away from my home caching area, its sometimes a nice way to see an "out of the way" place that a local may know abut but not on the tourist map. Quote Link to comment
+GrizzlyJohn Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 ... we have a vocal minority of Geocachers pushing the "traditional" Geocaching argument to kill virts. ... Good points. It is funny how an idea that is liked by many on the forums is told that it means nothing because so few people of the GeoCaching community visit the forums when the idea is something TPTB don't like. Just use the discussions about stats pages as an example. But when it is something they do agree with it seems OK then to read the pulse of the community by using the forums. Oh yea they will stick their finger in the air to see which way the wind blows. Only problem is they are always blowing on their own finger. So typical. Quote Link to comment
+Logscaler and Red Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 (edited) Small rant. Ourselves, we have done virtuals - 108 - and even placed a few - 6. But the ones we have placed will be changed where possible to a multi. But a couple have no chance for conversion so they will stay as they are. Anyway, of all those virtual’s we have found, only a half dozen or so could not have been made into a good micro cache or part of a multi stage cache. We usually hunt virtual’s only if they are in an area we are passing through or if they are in the way. Once and a while one will intrigue us with a photo or a challenge but we do not generally go out of our way to find them. But I would like to know how a view can be considered a "cache" by any stretch of the imagination. At least a micro has something physical to look for. We have been places that the view is spectacular, in our opinion. You might show up and think "Why?". Does this mean we should be able to drop a virtual cache on every wide spot as we head down the road/trail? No. The first time we went through Jackson Hole and Yellowstone and The Devils Tower and Mount Rushmore and 16 other National parks in one summer, We took photos of hundreds of views and items and locations. The next time it was less. The next time less still. And that is the way with this game. After seeing view after view someone else thinks is fantastic, we keep waiting for the best. And a lot of these places lack, badly. People must remember that a "Beautiful view" is very subjective to each individual at any given time and place. If I was to place a virtual in a high mountain pass as the sun was coming up and the valley was filled with fog with just the Mountain tops showing through, the sun reflecting off of snow capped peaks and then you come by later in the week and see nothing but clearcuts because your anti logging, you would wonder "WHY?" yourself. Subjective. You can only read so many historical plaques, markers and road signs before you start getting calloused and bored and just skim over the information looking for the answer so you can log a find. Big deal. But, if you have to stop and read through the sign/plaque/marker and get information to figure out the right coordinates for even a micro cache, then you have had to engage your brain cells to see if you have the right location. And if these historical markers can be tied together to show the local history, the better. And myself, I like to hunt caches for the mental gymnastics as much as the view or location. And placing caches. Trying to place interesting caches is a heck of a lot more challenging then finding them. But, you are the only one who knows your limits and abilities and how much of a challenge your capable of and if your happy to just hunt or place virtuals, so be it. The rest of us would like the ability to "IGNORE THIS CACHE". Edit: Spelling. Again. logscaler. Edited December 23, 2003 by logscaler Quote Link to comment
+Logscaler and Red Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Just a side note. I sat here at the computer and did three virtuals. Two in Oregon about 130 miles from home and under about 12 feet of snow right now and one I did last summer was 4-5 hundred miles away in Nevada. If your putting out virtuals, at least do something with them that can not be done from home. No, I did not file a "found it" for the caches. I informed the cache owners about what I did and how I went about it so they could change their cache to prevent this in the future. logscaler. Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Just a side note. I sat here at the computer and did three virtuals. Two in Oregon about 130 miles from home and under about 12 feet of snow right now and one I did last summer was 4-5 hundred miles away in Nevada. If your putting out virtuals, at least do something with them that can not be done from home. No, I did not file a "found it" for the caches. I informed the cache owners about what I did and how I went about it so they could change their cache to prevent this in the future. logscaler. I've done that before, which is one reason I don't like virtuals. They're too easy to fake. Quote Link to comment
+gobucks Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 I don't understand the logic of sitting at the computer to fake finds. Why would anyone care if someone else did? If the criteria for the quality of a type of cache is the difficulty of cheating, traditional caches would be at the bottom of the list. Faking would only require logging a find. How many cache owners actually match the physical logs with the web log? How many logs refer to a missing or saturated log book or someone forgetting to log? Or, with a little more effort, a fellow cacher could sign your name to cache logs. The bottom line is, people who want to cheat will find a way to do so. This is true for ALL types of caches. The fact that it is possble to cheat does not affect how I cache. BTW, lame caches come in all types as well. Physical caches are supposed to be placed in interesting or unique location. The fact that many are not has not caused me to stop hunting traditional caches. Quote Link to comment
+Sparky-Watts Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 BTW, lame caches come in all types as well. Physical caches are supposed to be placed in interesting or unique location. The fact that many are not has not caused me to stop hunting traditional caches. I don't see anywhere in the guidelines that physical caches must be placed in interesting or unique locations. Could you point out where it says that? Perhaps I missed it, but don't recall seeing it anywhere. Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 BTW, lame caches come in all types as well. Physical caches are supposed to be placed in interesting or unique location. The fact that many are not has not caused me to stop hunting traditional caches. I don't see anywhere in the guidelines that physical caches must be placed in interesting or unique locations. Could you point out where it says that? Perhaps I missed it, but don't recall seeing it anywhere. As I recall, the first geocache ever (the one placed by Dave Ulmer) was not in a historical or scenic spot. It was a bucket filled with items. Quote Link to comment
+Sparky-Watts Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 As I recall, the first geocache ever (the one placed by Dave Ulmer) was not in a historical or scenic spot. It was a bucket filled with items. So many people complain about virtuals of meadows, snow-capped mountains, waterfalls, etc. Come to Kansas sometime, the Land of the Lame Virtual, and you'll gain a new respect for waterfall virts! Historical marker virts? Don't care much for history, so I wouldn't go out of my way to find one. I've done one virt, a drive-by that was really bad....but I did it because it was a drive-by on the way to some traditionals in a really nice park. Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 As I recall, the first geocache ever (the one placed by Dave Ulmer) was not in a historical or scenic spot. It was a bucket filled with items. So many people complain about virtuals of meadows, snow-capped mountains, waterfalls, etc. Come to Kansas sometime, the Land of the Lame Virtual, and you'll gain a new respect for waterfall virts! Historical marker virts? Don't care much for history, so I wouldn't go out of my way to find one. I've done one virt, a drive-by that was really bad....but I did it because it was a drive-by on the way to some traditionals in a really nice park. How can you have a waterfall in Kansas? I thought it was flat Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.