Jump to content

Virtual Cache Disallowed


Recommended Posts

We have just had 2 virtual caches disallowed because we have been advised by the reviewer that the primary aim of the game is to find something physical. We used virtual as one physical has already been archived in one of these locations as MIA, and the other we felt a physical would spoil the area.

 

Reading the guidelines in the eyes of this particular reviewer we can't see how a virtual cache can ever be approved. We have been asked to replace the virtual by either a micro or the starting point of a multi-cache - surely just about every virtual can be replaced by one or other of these.

 

Just wondered what your thoughts are. I understand that the "traditionalists" hate virtuals, however we have found a bunch of virtuals that have taught us lots - and we are struggling over how the ones we have submitted differ from those that already exist.

 

S&G

Link to comment

The ones that already exist have been grandfathered in. They were there before the rule change. I for one agree with the rule and think any virtual can be made as part of a multi with a little imagination.

 

edit: added missing word

Edited by FarSideX
Link to comment
We have just had 2 virtual caches disallowed because we have been advised by the reviewer that the primary aim of the game is to find something physical. We used virtual as one physical has already been archived in one of these locations as MIA, and the other we felt a physical would spoil the area.

 

Reading the guidelines in the eyes of this particular reviewer we can't see how a virtual cache can ever be approved. We have been asked to replace the virtual by either a micro or the starting point of a multi-cache - surely just about every virtual can be replaced by one or other of these.

 

Just wondered what your thoughts are. I understand that the "traditionalists" hate virtuals, however we have found a bunch of virtuals that have taught us lots - and we are struggling over how the ones we have submitted differ from those that already exist.

 

S&G

The cache placing guidelines state:

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches.  This means that the past approval of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the approval of a new cache.  If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is.

 

It is very likely that the ones that already exist were placed before the current guidelines were in place. Guidelines were last updated 11/05/03 thats just 2 months ago.

 

Hopefully this will help your struggle.

Link to comment

The virtual guidelines should be rewritten to say:

 

"a virtual cache may not be hidden anywhere, no matter how novel and interesting the location, if there is even the slightest chance that you could hide a scrap of paper stuffed into a film canister in a nearby pile of trash and debris and create an offset to it even if you have to check on it daily to make sure that it has not been cleaned up or otherwise disappeared."

 

On the other hand:

 

"a traditional cache may be hidden anywhere, no matter how stupid, inappropriate, or mundane the location as long as there is a scrap of paper large enough for somebody to write their initials on stuck in some container for geocachers to find."

 

These are not the actual geocaching.com guidelines but this is a pretty fair appraisal of the way that they are applied by the approvers. The mistake you made was assuming that a good location would make a good cache. The game used to be played that way, and sometimes it still is, but that idea is pretty much irrelevent in this day and age. If you want to get a virt approved these days: lie, lie, lie, and hope that they buy your story.

Edited by Quest Master
Link to comment
The virtual guidelines should be rewritten to say:

 

"a virtual cache may not be hidden anywhere, no matter how novel and interesting the location, if there is even the slightest chance that you could hide a scrap of paper stuffed into a film canister in a nearby pile of trash and debris and create an offset to it even if you have to check on it daily to make sure that it has not been cleaned up or otherwise disappeared."

 

On the other hand:

 

"a tradional cache may be hidden anywhere, no matter how stupid, inappropriate, or mundane the location as long as there is a scrap of paper large enough for somebody to write their initials on stuck in some container for geocachers to find."

 

These are not the actual geocaching.com guidelines but this is a pretty fair appraisal of the way that they are applied by the approvers. The mistake you made was assuming that a good location would make a good cache. The game used to be played that way and sometimes it still is but that idea is pretty much irrelevent in this day and age. If you want to get a virt approved these days: lie, lie, lie, and hope that they buy your story.

I love it :D and I think you have pretty much summed it up to what we think it may be. There have been virtuals approved in the UK within the last 2 weeks that would appear to be no different from the 2 we are currently discussing. The guidelines are pretty subjective and I think we may have got a reviewer who just does not like virtuals. Quote from the Pirates of the Caribbean film re the pirates code - "they are more guidelines than actual rules" :huh:

Link to comment

First of all a moderator trying to ram a mulit stage down a cachers throat is silly at best. If you can't place a traditional cache in an area how the heck are you going to place a micro holding coordinates for a multi?

 

There are some places that scream for a virtual. Yes things have changed but virtuals still have their place in this hobby in my opinion. We've gotten past the monument type of virtual but I see nothing wrong with sending someone down a lovely path so they can enjoy a park and solve a virtual.

Link to comment
The virtual guidelines should be rewritten to say:

 

"a virtual cache may not be hidden anywhere, no matter how novel and interesting the location, if there is even the slightest chance that you could hide a scrap of paper stuffed into a film canister in a nearby pile of trash and debris and create an offset to it even if you have to check on it daily to make sure that it has not been cleaned up or otherwise disappeared."

 

On the other hand:

 

"a traditional cache may be hidden anywhere, no matter how stupid, inappropriate, or mundane the location as long as there is a scrap of paper large enough for somebody to write their initials on stuck in some container for geocachers to find."

 

These are not the actual geocaching.com guidelines but this is a pretty fair appraisal of the way that they are applied by the approvers. The mistake you made was assuming that a good location would make a good cache. The game used to be played that way, and sometimes it still is, but that idea is pretty much irrelevent in this day and age. If you want to get a virt approved these days: lie, lie, lie, and hope that they buy your story.

I fully agree with this. Approvers denying virtual caches really irritates me. If I hated virts, I would not go look for them.

Link to comment
We have been asked to replace the virtual by either a micro or the starting point of a multi-cache - surely just about every virtual can be replaced by one or other of these.

That's the idea. This game was conceived as finding a container of items at particular coordinates. Virtuals were started to allow caching in places where containers are prohibited. If the other container was plundered, maybe you can do a better job of hiding yours. How can a container 'spoil' an area? If it's hidden, non-geocachers won't even know it is there.

Link to comment
What happened to the thing where any post with navicache was sent to the moderator's que to be approved?

That was on the old forums, and if I remember right, was added when a certain forum member got mad because she submitted 2 virtual caches, 35ft apart, and the approver told her to combine them into one. Not declined (they were later approved, btw), just merged together, since 35 ft is really too close to tell apart with consumer grade gps. She then spammed the forums with tons of posts about how gc.com sucks, and everyone should go to navicache instead. I'm pretty sure that user has since been banned, and I guess TPTB no longer felt the need to moderate that word since the problem is gone.

Link to comment
This is gc.com, love it or leave it "

Interesting signature, the nice thing is that it doesn't have to be that black and white for us does it? :(

No it doesn't. It's actually a quote someone used in reference to me, along with calling me a "geopatriot". I assume it was meant as an insult, but I'll take both as compliments.

Link to comment

I like virtuals. I prefer the gps part of caching more than the crawling around sifting through leaves part. I like history, I like interesting places. I'm satisfied when I get to some odd place I've never seen before more than I am trading a toy car for a whistle.

 

I'm new to this and unfortunately came into this game too late. I wish new virtuals were allowed. Then the seeker would still have the option to not look for the virtuals if they didn't want too.

Link to comment
I like virtuals. I prefer the gps part of caching more than the crawling around sifting through leaves part. I like history, I like interesting places. I'm satisfied when I get to some odd place I've never seen before more than I am trading a toy car for a whistle.

 

I'm new to this and unfortunately came into this game too late. I wish new virtuals were allowed. Then the seeker would still have the option to not look for the virtuals if they didn't want too.

New Virtuals ARE still allowed. I approved one yesterday.

 

Do not believe it when people say that virtuals are not approved. the guidelines make it harder but the are still being approved

Link to comment
I like virtuals. I prefer the gps part of caching more than the crawling around sifting through leaves part. I like history, I like interesting places. I'm satisfied when I get to some odd place I've never seen before more than I am trading a toy car for a whistle.

 

I'm new to this and unfortunately came into this game too late. I wish new virtuals were allowed. Then the seeker would still have the option to not look for the virtuals if they didn't want too.

If you prefer finding histoical places with your gps to finding tupperware and ammo boxes, there are other websites out there better suited to what you like.

The two that come up the most are www.ecoscavenger.com and www.waypoint.org. Now, lots of people will say that those sites aren't as nice as this one. Well, then complain to them! This place has certain rules in place concerning what caches they will or will not list. If this place doesn't have what you want, find someplace that does, Being a car guy, I still think of all the people complaining that this site doesnt have what they want as akin to complaining your local Chevy dealer won't stock Fords.

Link to comment

I also approved a very nice virtual cache today. It took the finder on a nice tour of native american history sites within a park that has banned geocaching. Once you get a "no" answer to "Can a traditional cache be placed nearby?" and a "yes" answer to "is this a site of compelling and unusual interest to geocachers?" it is a delight to press the 'approve' button.

Link to comment
No it doesn't. It's actually a quote someone used in reference to me, along with calling me a "geopatriot".

A geopatriot? That's a good one. Well I've been called worse.

 

I have a couple of virtuals in mind and I believe they will be approved. Back when there were 1000 caches available worldwide anything seemed acceptable and we needed all we could get. Now it's different. No big deal.

Link to comment

This is geocaching.com not geotravel.com

 

It continues to amaze me why some people can't understand and accept the fact that the basic concept of geocaching is the placement and hunt for a physical cache. You also don't have a good concept of human nature if you fail to see that if there were no limits on virtual caches, everyone and their aunt and uncle would be placing vacation virtuals and regular virtuals like weeds across the globe. I could go through travel books while sitting on my couch and getting the coordinates to every statue in Europe and placing virtuals by the dozens even though I have never been there or ever intend to be there. Personally I would see this as rather rude to the local folks that may live near one of these and would like to place a physical cache in the town where they live.

 

With no limits to virtuals, I am sure that a third of all caches now would probably be virtuals. Face it, people are lazy, if they can get away without having to fuss with maintenance or finding a good durable hiding spot, they will. This sport has grown because of the hunt for the logbook. I just don't see any viable sites on the internet called geotravel.com. Maybe there should be, but it's not what the basic concept of caching is.

Link to comment
I also approved a very nice virtual cache today. It took the finder on a nice tour of native american history sites within a park that has banned geocaching. Once you get a "no" answer to "Can a traditional cache be placed nearby?" and a "yes" answer to "is this a site of compelling and unusual interest to geocachers?" it is a delight to press the 'approve' button.

Funny, I looked at the same cache since it is on the border of an area that we both cover. I thought it was OK and left it there meaning to email Keystone about it this morning. I saw that he approved it this morning.

:(

Link to comment
Reading the guidelines in the eyes of this particular reviewer we can't see how a virtual cache can ever be approved.

At least you are learning something. Too bad that you wasted your time, without being aware that the current effective rule is: NO VIRTUALS. They do however give you the futile privilege of trying to demonstrate that your proposed virtual should somehow be an exception to the rule. Virtuals have not been banned outright, so that naive people like you (who through no fault of your own aren’t aware of the effective rule) can become frustrated and disappointed. Quite sadistic isn't it? It happens all the time and usually results in a discussion on the forums like this one.

Link to comment
Lazyboy & Mitey Mite Jan 4 2004, 02:24 PM  - First of all a moderator trying to ram a mulit stage down a cachers throat is silly at best. If you can't place a traditional cache in an area how the heck are you going to place a micro holding coordinates for a multi?

 

I've done several multi caches where the first stage was some sort of decryption process based on something I read/saw in a virtual. Usually just a simple two step multi leading me to another area nearby where an actual cache was hidden. Not that hard really when you think about it.

Edited by MedicOne
Link to comment
I hear you can slip some money in with your cache sumission to "seal the deal"....
Paypal only, please. :( Watchit Paul. :D

 

Once again I totally agree with Navdog. I think he / she sums up my stance on the issue in a nutshell, as does Keystone's post.

 

Forget for a moment that I'm a cache reviewer and check my stats ~ while I will log certain virtuals as "finds", I've found very few locations that I have found worthy of submission of a virtual cache. I try to find a place to hide at least a micro cache or I leave the location to someone else.

Link to comment
It continues to amaze me why some people can't understand and accept the fact that the basic concept of geocaching is the placement and hunt for a physical cache.

Uh huh...and where in "basic concept" or as the guidelines state "basis for the activity" does it say there can't be virtuals?

 

The "basic concept" in baseball is hitting the ball without the defender catching it...but you can still steal a base or tag up or walk in order to advance the game. The point being that everything has a "basic concept" but there are obvious accepted corollaries and tangents to every game and virtuals are one of them accepted even here at GC.com (as some approvers pointed out, there were 2 new ones just this past week!).

 

The guidelines are very specific about what a virtual must be (solid object, answer a question, etc) but are completely unclear on what a virtual must be to be acceptable to an approver ("A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches. Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples.") Keystone's example of multiple Native American sites making a virtual is irksome, because it seems like a series of signs/memorials and the "WOW" factor certainly isn't in quite the same realm as interacting with live fish in their native habitat...

 

In fact, why wasn't the Native American virtual hider told to create a micro 300 feet from the last stop on the Native American tour multi and generate the coordinates from information on signage at each of the stops which make the current virtual?

 

You see? It's all about what the approver(s) finds to be "WOW" and whether they feel like telling that person to hide a film container or not as to whether a virtual is accepted.

 

In the New England forums, I proposed a virtual based on the red chair in the outfield at Fenway. It certainly meets all of the requirements for what a virtual must be, but I was told (commercial entry to the ballpark aside) that the "WOW" factor wasn't there and it would probably be denied on that basis alone. But looking above, it's not your average historical marker, to anyone with any ounce of baseball OR Boston history interest it carries a ton of WOW factor, and it's pictured in all sorts of coffee table books on American Ballparks/Fenway. But I was still told by one of my would-be approvers that it isn't special enough to be a virtual (the exact reason was a slippery slope argument against all baseball memories in all the ballparks in the US). BUT even *that* argument goes against their entire commentary on how previous caches are not excuses for new caches so now they've established a serious paradox (you can't create a new cache that could be used for precedence for someone else's future cache and would obviously lessen some of the WOW factor of your cache...even though the guidelines state they can't use your's as precedence if it were established!)

 

The hypocrisy (or to be generous, the confusion) of virtuals and their acceptance here is what generates these posts from people fairly new to the site (or the forums at least) and the outlet valve as stated in the guidelines is to come here and post about it...thus dredging the lake over and over again just to dump the silt back where it came from...

 

That last paragraph is in like sentiment to seneca's post. There! Are you happy, GC.com? You made me agree with seneca. :D:(

 

:D

Link to comment
I also approved a very nice virtual cache today. It took the finder on a nice tour of native american history sites within a park that has banned geocaching. Once you get a "no" answer to "Can a traditional cache be placed nearby?" and a "yes" answer to "is this a site of compelling and unusual interest to geocachers?" it is a delight to press the 'approve' button.

Problem is we had explained that especially as a physical has already been archived here as MIA. Also the reason we were given was that it prevents a physical being placed. We too could answer no and yes to the questions you asked - had we been asked them showing just how subjective the guidelines can be.

 

Thanks for all the replies.

 

S&G

Link to comment

Dang! I hate to pull this card out, but ju66l3r, you've never hidden even *one* cache!

 

1) You talk about a cache you posted in the NE forums ~ that's not a cache, brother.

 

2) You can post all you like to your local forums about how you think geocaching ought to be. Get out there and hide a cache.

 

Submit a cache, be it virtual or otherwise, or divert your opinions elsewhere where they are informed.

 

Mods ~ feel free to delete this post.

 

Edit - unwanted smilie

Edited by 9Key
Link to comment
I like virtuals. I prefer the gps part of caching more than the crawling around sifting through leaves part. I like history, I like interesting places. I'm satisfied when I get to some odd place I've never seen before more than I am trading a toy car for a whistle.

 

I'm new to this and unfortunately came into this game too late. I wish new virtuals were allowed. Then the seeker would still have the option to not look for the virtuals if they didn't want too.

 

Hi

During June 2003 I had a lenghty battle to get two out three Virts approved. After explaining my reasons to the (dis)approver in detail it was promptly approved and to this day I am grateful to him as I get only positive feedback from cachers. Local as well as overseas visitors.

 

With reference to the above quote I wholeheartedly agree. Pardon me if I perhaps repeat myself, as I might have mentioned it in another post, but not everybody is physcially able to "crawl around sifting through leaves....." . Denying virts will also deny these people access to the game.

 

That said, I agree that there should be proper/reasonable "rules" in place to prevent a horde of virts placed indiscriminately.

 

Due to various reasons I've been unable to actively participate in geocaching lately, but hope to be able to rectify this in the months to come.

 

Thanks for the views in these forums - it does tend to give a (sort of) balanced perspective to a topic.

Link to comment
The point being that everything has a "basic concept" but there are obvious accepted corollaries and tangents to every game and virtuals are one of them accepted even here at GC.com (as some approvers pointed out, there were 2 new ones just this past week!).

 

The guidelines are very specific about what a virtual must be (solid object, answer a question, etc) but are completely unclear on what a virtual must be to be acceptable to an approver ("A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches. Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples.") Keystone's example of multiple Native American sites making a virtual is irksome, because it seems like a series of signs/memorials and the "WOW" factor certainly isn't in quite the same realm as interacting with live fish in their native habitat...

 

In fact, why wasn't the Native American virtual hider told to create a micro 300 feet from the last stop on the Native American tour multi and generate the coordinates from information on signage at each of the stops which make the current virtual?

 

You see? It's all about what the approver(s) finds to be "WOW" and whether they feel like telling that person to hide a film container or not as to whether a virtual is accepted.

Go back and read my post again, please. The virtual tour was hidden in a park operated by the X County Park System. Physical geocaches are PROHIBITED in X County Parks. "Well, then hide the last stage in a nearby place that isn't a county park." Nope - the adjacent property is managed by the National Park Service. This cache perfectly fit the purpose for which virtuals were first added to the website.

 

I found it quite ironic that my approval of a virtual cache became a subject for criticism by someone who thinks there should be more virtual caches. Likewise, I found it interesting that Seneca's post followed mine and CO Admin's so closely, without pausing to acknowledge the fact that virtuals are approved on a regular basis... when they meet the published guidelines.

 

You never hear much in the forums about the virts that are approved, only the ones that are archived.

Link to comment
Dang! I hate to pull this card out, but ju66l3r, you've never hidden even *one* cache!

 

1) You talk about a cache you posted in the NE forums ~ that's not a cache, brother.

 

2) You can post all you like to your local forums about how you think geocaching ought to be. Get out there and hide a cache.

 

Submit a cache, be it virtual or otherwise, or divert your opinions elsewhere where they are informed.

 

Mods ~ feel free to delete this post.

 

Edit - unwanted smilie

Since 9Key has the Forum Guidelines committed to memory, such that he KNEW to invite a moderator to delete his post, I will quote the following section for everyone else's benefit:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

I interpret this paragraph to also mean that you need to respect someone's right to hold an opinion regardless of whether their found/hidden statistics are 208/17 or 12/0. At most, the statistics are available for folks to check upon... privately... when deciding how much weight to give to someone's opinion. Even then, numbers can be misleading, as when someone hides caches under a team account different than their forum posting account.

 

ju66l3r has strongly held views on cache placement requirements, which he expresses well and without violating the forum guidelines. Tear apart his opinions (as I attempted to do in my post above), but respect his right to hold them and express them.

 

Bad, bad 9Key. :(

Link to comment
I found it quite ironic that my approval of a virtual cache became a subject for criticism by someone who thinks there should be more virtual caches. Likewise, I found it interesting that Seneca's post followed mine and CO Admin's so closely, without pausing to acknowledge the fact that virtuals are approved on a regular basis... when they meet the published guidelines.

 

You never hear much in the forums about the virts that are approved, only the ones that are archived.

My criticism was in using that cache as a shining example of how virtuals are still being approved, there wasn't mention of the nearby NPS land, so it would seem that a film canister could have been placed nearby. As I have pointed out in previous posts on this topic, it seems that the only way a virtual is allowed now-a-days is when it is buried a few miles inside of NPS/FWS/etc land where physical geocaching is not approvable.

 

There are many ways to meet the published guidelines and *not* have to be neck-deep in a prohibited area...but whenever such a situation arises, the person is told to hide a film canister. There is no argument with a virtual approved tomorrow where the finder would have to travel miles to reach land allowing for a film canister. I'd like to hear about virtuals approved where they could have hid a film canister but didn't have to to satisfy the approver. How often do *those* happen?

 

I think the biggest oddity of this situation is that a photo of you and your GPSr at a specific location with a specific tidbit of information is as telling as your signature on a sheet of notebook paper in a film canister. The only reason to force the micro situations is to satisfy someone's archaic need for having a physical presence at a location that is not the object itself. This addition to what would otherwise be a trip to see a specific landmark (especially when film canisters can be so annoying to find) as well as often then having to do some sort of math to get the coordinates really does distract from what the would've-been virtual hider's true intentions were. As much as some physical hiders enjoy finding the neatest little niches to place their caches, there are virtual hiders who would like to point out some of the neatest little WOWs around them in the same manner (including a much lower upkeep). I would be one of those hiders (ahem, 9Key) if I knew that it wouldn't be a Red Zone struggle everytime I discover another interesting place around town. I am not interested in placing boxes in the woods of Boston. There are many others that do it much better than I would care to worry about. There are interesting sights and places of interest that are often missed that I'm sure many people would be interested in, if only I could place virtuals without having to find all of the NPS land...

Link to comment
.... Likewise, I found it interesting that Seneca's post followed mine and CO Admin's so closely, without pausing to acknowledge the fact that virtuals are approved on a regular basis... when they meet the published guidelines

(emphasis added).

 

There are no published guidelines for virtual caches. I repeat: There are no published guidelines for virtual caches. Virtuals are approved solely by the subjective whim of an approver. The words

 

"A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a very unique and compelling nature"

 

and

 

"Although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant listing as a unique cache page."

 

are not guidelines (even if they are disguised as such). These words amount to: If we like it we might approve it. Proper guidelines exist so a person can be reasonably assured that if followed, the cache will be approved. That is not the case with virtual caches at geocaching.com. In order to get a virtual cache approved you must first win a little "impressing" contest with the approver, where you can somehow trigger his or her subjective sentiment in your favor (and there are no guidelines to help you there).

Link to comment
Virtuals are approved solely by the subjective whim of an approver.

 

That's a real shame. Who's having their rights or pleasure deprived by approving virtuals? Again, if you hate them or feel that that's not really a cache, don't look for them. The people being deprived by the (dis)approvers are those who like to look for virts and LCs.

Link to comment

We continued the conversation with the reviewer discussing why one of these would be difficult as a real physisal which was then approved. We will be changing the other virtual to the start of a multi tour thsi weekend.

 

just thought we'd provide the outcome. Thanks for the discussion yesterday.

 

S&G

Link to comment

It might be helpful to point out that prior to the more stringent review process for virtuals, there was some really absurd submissions. While they have not all been made public, a couple that have been mentioned include the rotting bird carcass ('take a picture so we can track its decay') and the old tennis shoe abandoned in the woods ('e-mail the brand...')

 

Add to these ridiculous 'virtuals' the well-meaning attempts by some cachers to turn every roadside historical marker into a virtual (even when the entire text of many is already on-line). In a nutshell, the approval process for virtuals was broken. Something had to change.

 

You might not agree with the required level of quality now insisted upon by the approvers, but I'd personally rather have that control than the alternative. I like virtuals but I don't want to go out of my way to find one, only to learn that the 'special object' I'm hunting for is an old washing machine...

Link to comment
It might be helpful to point out that prior to the more stringent review process for virtuals, there was some really absurd submissions. While they have not all been made public, a couple that have been mentioned include the rotting bird carcass ('take a picture so we can track its decay') and the old tennis shoe abandoned in the woods ('e-mail the brand...')

It would also be prudent to point out that all of those "really absurd" objects that have been rejected as "virtual caches" would be completely within the rules for "traditional caches" if they simply contained a scrap of paper serving as a "logbook." Now that incongruity is truly absurd.

 

In fact, I did a cache this past weekend that had me stumped for quite a while, and there just happened to be an old, black sneaker sitting out in the open within 30 ft of indicated ground zero. The cache description stated the container was "smaller than an ammo box but larger than a typical micro," so there was very good reason to pick up the sneaker and take a look. (Was it the cache? HaHa. Go find out for yourself. :) )

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment
It would also be prudent to point out that all of those "really absurd" objects that have been rejected as "virtual caches" would be completely within the rules for "traditional caches" if they simply contained a scrap of paper serving as a "logbook."  Now that incongruity is truly absurd.

(Warning, the following post was created before I was fully awake. I may regret it later.)

 

No. Not really.

 

If I recall correctly, this sport/hobby/whatever took off because someone hid a bucket. The cache was backbone of geocaching. It wasn't the location or the difficulty of the trip. It was that there was a bucket there.

 

Virtuals are a completely different deal. There is no longer anything hidden there for you to find.

"Ok, so why go?", people ask.

"Well, there's something really cool there. It's not hidden but it's cool."

"Ok, what the heck, we'll go."

 

"Well, now we want you to go somewhere. There's nothing hidden there, and there's nothing cool there, but go anyway."

"Why?"

"You didn't ask why when it was a bucket did you? Now go approve my virtual or I'll flame the forums until you beg for mercy!!!!"

 

It's geocaching, not geowandering or geositeseeing or geotourism. I like virtuals but the fact that the requirements are higher for them makes sense to me.

Link to comment
If I recall correctly, this sport/hobby/whatever took off because someone hid a bucket. The cache was backbone of geocaching. It wasn't the location or the difficulty of the trip. It was that there was a bucket there.

So, obviously, you're the guy who stuck a scrap of paper into the rotting squirrel's posterior and called it "The Back(side) of Geocaching." Well done, and thanks for the cache. :)

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment
It's geocaching, not geowandering or geositeseeing or geotourism. I like virtuals but the fact that the requirements are higher for them makes sense to me.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. How does having "higher" requirements change "geogeowandering or geositeseeing or geotourism" into geocaching??

Edited by seneca
Link to comment

What I like about geocaching.com is that I can go to one database to look up physical, virtual, webcam, etc... overall, it offers a varied search-and-find experience. Some experiences are the "find the container". Others are "get your photo taken by the web-cam". Others are "find the object in the location, and spend enough time at it to answer some questions about it."

 

To quote from the Groundspeak web site: "Groundspeak, Inc. creates the toolset for building location-based adventures in the real world using a unique combination of technology and the Internet." Thus, geocaching.com in its database today is synonomous with the larger mission of Groundspeak.

 

Unfortunately, in my personal view, Groundspeak is becoming synonymous with Geocaching-find-the-container vs. offering a wide variety of caching experiences, by the simple decision to make physical caches the priority of geocaching.com.

 

I wish Groundspeak would continue to maintain databases to support all sorts of location-adventures, and be equally supportive of both. Be they search-and-find (geocahcing), virtuals (geolearning/geotouring), and web-cam (geophotography).

 

Perhaps we need to put the cache types in their own databases, but have Groundspeak allow for coordinating searching of those databases (as happens today). And perhaps the databases need to be discrete and not 'step' on each other in "staking a claim of physical territory" - in other words, I could have a geotouring (virtual) experience within a few yards of a cache hunting experience - they don't stake a claim making the others impossible.

 

I would think such an endeavor to be of little interest to geocaching.com-find-the-bucket fans, but to perhaps be of interest to users wanting other types of outdoor adventures, and a company that really supported all user bases, vs. prioritizing and selecting one would indeed be creating a toolset for building location-based adventures in the real world using a unique combination of technology and the Internet.

 

We so often talk about other web sites, that could be created, to manage virtuals. Why not have Groundspeak take up that challenge? As far as I am concerned, they are the best organizers of these activities, so why don't they solve this problem?

 

-Jif

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...