Jump to content

Virtual Cache Disallowed


Recommended Posts

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.

This is probably the biggest issue surrounding virts. 'Cachers' don't want virts to rule out a future traditional in that location (or near it). We've heard that changes to virts are in the works, but no timeframe has been set. Once virts move into their own 'Geotouring/Geolearning' area I suspect cachers won't care where virts are 'placed'

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.

:lol: WOW! Its only funny cuz its true. ;)

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.

THATS totally nonsensical since they used to stock fords here.

 

Understand. Its the bait and switch aspect that people complain about.

 

And that HAS happened. Its a fact.

Link to comment
This cache perfectly fit the purpose for which virtuals were first added to the website.

I disagree totally. That was not the purpose when they started and anyone who has been around here a year and a half or more knows it. They used to be just a diffrent type. Just like a micro or a multi or a traditional.

Link to comment

This thread seems to rerun under a different name about once a week. Always the same players. Same complaints. I find it amazing that some of the most vocal opponents of virtuals have several among their finds and in a few cases, a significant number. Heck some of them even have virtuals of their own hidden. (hidden?...... how did that happen?) I also find it amazing that a virtual that takes me to a long overgrown marker that tells me about a hospital used to treat soldiers injured in the Battle of Brandywine in 1777 is somehow more lame than finding a hide-a-key box sucked fast to a downspout behind the local K-Mart. Oh, but of course the box has "something for me to find" (wow) and a 3"x3" scrap of paper for me to sign (oh, there's still a 1/4 inch left that's blank). I find that percentage wise, the lame virtuals and the lame traditionals are running neck and neck. And I can't sort out lame caches no matter what icon is next to them. I've been a lot more disappointed to trek a mile into the woods to find a cracked tupperware box full of mold than most of the virtuals I've done so far. Certainly what "wows" one cacher will bore the next. That doesn't necessarily make one or the other wrong. By reading the cache descriptions I can select what I find interesting and ignore that which I choose. I beleive that everyone else has that same option. Personally, I like having the option to do virtuals if I choose. Not because they do or do not fit someone elses mold of what is a cache, but because I enjoy it, and isn't fun and enjoyment what GEOCACHING is really supposed to be about.

Link to comment
The cacher that started this topic added a new topic which was basically a reply to this topic. I merged it into this topic. Since it was made at around 11 PM PST last night, it has been lost in the topic a bit. I wanted to provide a link to their post here since I just moved it into the topic and it is on page 1.

 

S&G's post merged within this topic.

Oh....ok...so what you're trying to say is the original poster got his answer and resolved the original problem and everything beyond that point is fluff? Well, ya gotta admit, it's been a lively discussion! Thanks for the info, mtn-man! ;)

Link to comment
This thread seems to rerun under a different name about once a week. Always the same players. Same complaints. I find it amazing that some of the most vocal opponents of virtuals have several among their finds and in a few cases, a significant number. Heck some of them even have virtuals of their own hidden. (hidden?...... how did that happen?) I also find it amazing that a virtual that takes me to a long overgrown marker that tells me about a hospital used to treat soldiers injured in the Battle of Brandywine in 1777 is somehow more lame than finding a hide-a-key box sucked fast to a downspout behind the local K-Mart. Oh, but of course the box has "something for me to find" (wow) and a 3"x3" scrap of paper for me to sign (oh, there's still a 1/4 inch left that's blank). I find that percentage wise, the lame virtuals and the lame traditionals are running neck and neck. And I can't sort out lame caches no matter what icon is next to them. I've been a lot more disappointed to trek a mile into the woods to find a cracked tupperware box full of mold than most of the virtuals I've done so far. Certainly what "wows" one cacher will bore the next. That doesn't necessarily make one or the other wrong. By reading the cache descriptions I can select what I find interesting and ignore that which I choose. I beleive that everyone else has that same option. Personally, I like having the option to do virtuals if I choose. Not because they do or do not fit someone elses mold of what is a cache, but because I enjoy it, and isn't fun and enjoyment what GEOCACHING is really supposed to be about.

Bingo! (Same message, 100th person to post it, 1000th different thread, same basic topic). Thanks for summing it all up for us, Colonel! ;)

Link to comment
The cacher that started this topic added a new topic which was basically a reply to this topic.  I merged it into this topic.  Since it was made at around 11 PM PST last night, it has been lost in the topic a bit.  I wanted to provide a link to their post here since I just moved it into the topic and it is on page 1.

 

S&G's post merged within this topic.

Oh....ok...so what you're trying to say is the original poster got his answer and resolved the original problem and everything beyond that point is fluff? Well, ya gotta admit, it's been a lively discussion! Thanks for the info, mtn-man! :lol:

No sir, never said that at all. ;)

 

If I would have moved the post with no comment I would have been accused of sneaking it into the middle of the topic without notice. My post was simply an informational post so *everyone* would know that I moved the post into this topic.

 

As Colonel Mustard said:

This thread seems to rerun under a different name about once a week. Always the same players. Same complaints.

 

It does, it is always the same dialog, and I choose not to participate in it anymore. For what its worth, my opinions should be well know. I like virtual caches myself. I seek them and have created them. I have also been given a set of guidelines to use as an approver so I follow them. If I don't, then I will be removed as an approver. Until I am told differently, I will continue to do what I am asked to do as an approver. It is easy for me to separate the two roles.

 

That said, feel free to continue the discussion.

Link to comment

No sir, never said that at all. ;)

 

If I would have moved the post with no comment I would have been accused of sneaking it into the middle of the topic without notice. My post was simply an informational post so *everyone* would know that I moved the post into this topic.

 

Sorry, my mistake and misunderstanding. Carry on. :lol:

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. ;)

You're welcome. Ley me know when you want me to pull that paper back out of your butt.

 

---------------------

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??

 

It doesn't. But understanding why an exception to the norm is allowed helps, especially when the exception improves something. Personally I consider virtuals an exception to caches and locationless an exception to virtuals. That may not be how it is, but it makes it very easy to accept and work with, especially since I know that if I can't work within those boundaries I'm free to work outside of them somewhere else.

 

---------------------

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?

 

Last I knew they were doing that. But the act of trying to improve virtuals hasn't done much to end the complaints from people who want a solution yesterday and had created some new complaints from virtual hunters who don't want anything to happen to their numbers.

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

 

TeamJiffy, an excellent post! If your comments and solutions were acted upon, threads of this type would dissappear and Geocaching.com would be much improved. I suspect that making the changes you have suggested might not be a simple as it may seem, but it would really be worthwhile for Geoaching.com to to follow that path. There is lots that can be done outdoors with a GPS, and this excellent site could become a very broad and useful resource in this regard.

Edited by seneca
Link to comment
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...

But as long as there is a ammo can inside that old washing machine your good right?

Yep, because the special object is then the ammo can.

 

In the situations like the one Colonel Mustard brings up, it's not just a case of whether or not a particular location is 'lame'. Certainly, these days there needs to be a 'Wow' factor. But there's a second question - can a physical cache be hidden there? If so, you can please both the folks who will be impressed by the locale and the ones who just want to sign a log.

 

If there's just no way to hide a container, what about a virtual tour of the Brandywine battlefield, culminating in a visit to the neglected marker, to continue the example? Virtuals that show thought and effort will no doubt be more impressive, have more 'Wow', than ones that sound like a spur of the moment idea of someone passing through.

 

Until someone figures out an objective way to create a line that excludes the rotting carcasses (whether or not it contains a log) and other lame ideas (however you personally define them) without hurting the placement of quality caches, we're going to have to rely upon the subjective judgement of the approvers. It certainly doesn't hurt to give them as much help as possible to see what's so cool about your submission.

Link to comment
Until someone figures out an objective way to create a line that excludes the rotting carcasses (whether or not it contains a log) and other lame ideas (however you personally define them) without hurting the placement of quality caches, we're going to have to rely upon the subjective judgement of the approvers. It certainly doesn't hurt to give them as much help as possible to see what's so cool about your submission.

Its easy to stop a proliferation of obviously stupid, inappropriate caches whether they be virtual, or physical. Just don’t approve them. The “running shoe” and “rotting carcass” caches, are by any reasonable person’s objective opinion, not appropriate. The purpose of subjective process used in approving virtuals has, by the very words set out in the so called guidelines, nothing to do with eliminating inappropriate caches, and everything to do with taking away the geocaching community’s ability to decide on its own whether a cache is aesthetically worthy of approval. This has had the desired effect of keeping virtual caches to a minimum, which in my view is the reason why the subjective approval process is in place. I prefer to see Geocaching.com as providing an excellent platform for the posting of caches. I accept that it necessary for such a platform to have objective guidelines in place for safety and environmental reasons, and to maintain the integrity of the game. However, to me the creativity and the aesthetic approval/disapproval of caches (whether they be physical, virtual or whatever) should always be left to those who actually play the game.

Link to comment
However, to me the creativity and the aesthetic approval/disapproval of caches (whether they be physical, virtual or whatever) should always be left to those who actually play the game.

 

That's why those who review the cache submissions aren't clerical help paid by the hour by Groundspeak. They are those who play the game doing it as volunteers.

 

I agree with all of what Seneca said, in principle. In practice it's not as clear cut though. The word "subjective" is used several times by Seneca, but the hope is that the posted guidelines remove as much of the subjective from the decisions as possible. Unfortunately what is sometimes clear cut and obviously inappropriate to the cache reviewer is just as obviously appropriate in the mind of the cache submitter.

 

As a cache reviewer I've often wished that the approval/disapproval part of the "job" wasn't necessary, but I'm afraid with what we sometimes get to review that's not practical.

 

erik - geocaching.com cache reviewer & approver

 

Hey, that was my 500th post. Can I log a smilie for that? ;)

 

edited to kill a few more minutes before I punch off the job.......

Edited by erik88l-r
Link to comment

Aye. Seneca got it right but still in the end we have to rely on "a reasonable person's objective opinion" to decide which caches should be listed. It may be possible create guidelines that would be more objective and less subjective but I wouldn't want to be the person to try my hand at writing them. Perhaps Seneca would like to take a crack at it. I also would not like to have the judge, jury, and executioner role of the approvers who catch all of the crap for denying a cache. My skin is too thin. It would be an easy job if we could count on everybody using common sense and taking some pride in their hides but we have seen clearly in the short history of geocaching that this will not always be the case. We have to rely on the appovers and the guidelines to keep the game fun and we can only hope that the appovers will continue to do at least as good a job as they have done in the past and work proactively to fix things that are broken. It is a good sign that they participate actively in these forums even though they are often criticized here. I hope that they don't take any of it personally.

Link to comment
As long as it isn't Georgia mountains.

 

:lol:

There are no mountains in Georgia!

Sort of, and that's why my vacation this past summer was in Colorado.

:P

 

I hope that they don't take any of it personally.

I don't, but some cachers do. I am currently dealing with having a find of mine deleted on a recent cache I found from a cacher whose locationless cache I denied well over a year ago.

;):P;)

Link to comment
As long as it isn't Georgia mountains.

 

:P

There are no mountains in Georgia!

Sort of, and that's why my vacation this past summer was in Colorado.

:lol:

 

I hope that they don't take any of it personally.

I don't, but some cachers do. I am currently dealing with having a find of mine deleted on a recent cache I found from a cacher whose locationless cache I denied well over a year ago.

;):D;)

Part of being "the man" :P

Link to comment
maintenanceguy,Jan 4 2004, 07:19 PM] I like virtuals.  I prefer the gps part of caching

 

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

;) I love virtual caches that take me to interesting locals I otherwise would not have found. I checked out both sites you mentioned and found that although neither site is nearly as well organized or formatted as GC.com ecoscavenger is not a bad site.

waypoint .org on the other hand has waypoints for things that I think noone cares about. Who cares about the intersection of 2 hiways unless you're lost,and then if your lost chances are you don't have internet access to look up where you are! as far as the topic of this discussion I too have been turned down for a virtual, even though it was a physical thing,it was suggested that I place a micro. Which I could've but prefered not to. If you find something really cool you want to post as a virtual just find a sign or something of signifigance nearby to send people to,and make them answer some mundane question about the sign or place in order to log the cache. You can always add a note to check out the thing you really want them to see!

Edited by bleattler
Link to comment
Aye. Seneca got it right but still in the end we have to rely on "a reasonable person's objective opinion" to decide which caches should be listed. It may be possible create guidelines that would be more objective and less subjective but I wouldn't want to be the person to try my hand at writing them. Perhaps Seneca would like to take a crack at it.

It's not necessary. Currently there are no guidelines to regulate the aesthetic quality of physical caches, and it doesn't seem that anyone is clamouring to have such regulation. This type of free range caching we enjoy, should, in my opinion, also apply to virtual caches. The only problem is that it would result in a proliferation of virtual caches, which under the current format, is something many would oppose. Sounding like a broken record: Separate them out into a discreet game and let them flourish!

Link to comment
Currently there are no guidelines to regulate the aesthetic quality of physical caches, and it doesn't seem that anyone is clamouring to have such regulation.

It seems lately that I have seen quite a few people who want their virtuals approve clamoring for exactly that. I belive a number of people in this very thread were discussing old shoes and decaying squirrels in an effort to get rules in place limiting physical caches to standards closer to those of non-cache waypoints.

Link to comment
It seems lately that I have seen quite a few people who want their virtuals approve clamoring for exactly that. I belive a number of people in this very thread were discussing old shoes and decaying squirrels in an effort to get rules in place limiting physical caches to standards closer to those of non-cache waypoints.

Or were those objects used merely as examples of how absurd it is that dead animal carcasses, dirty old sneakers, etc. are considered perfectly acceptable under one category but not another?

 

Personally, I couldn't care less if another virtual cache is ever approved. But at the same time, I agree with those people who state that, in many cases, a virtual cache would be preferable to just another film canister "log-scrap only" microcache. I agree that it would be better (meaning: having less destructive impact on the site) having people answer a few questions about, for example, a statue or historical site, than encouraging seekers to trample the landscaping at the site, climb all over the monument/statue, or tear that old stone/brick structure apart looking for that precious film canister. (Those are not hypothetical examples: I have personally seen each situation on numerous occasions.)

 

Ironically, I have also seen several of these "log-scrap micros" converted to virtual caches after the film canister was stolen and the vacationer who placed the cache couldn't return to replace it ...

 

We see so many of these redundant threads about virtual caches, locationless caches, vacation caches, etc. because the listing service sends mixed messages about them. I would suggest that "grandfathering" of caches, or the "grandfathering" of entire categories of caches that are no longer considered "acceptable" is the primary reason such topics reappear with such great frequency.

 

The solution is for the listing service to draw the line by clearly delineating the types and categories of caches that are acceptable and by delisting all non-conforming caches/categories of caches.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment
The solution is for the listing service to draw the line by clearly delineating the types and categories of caches that are acceptable and by delisting all non-conforming caches/categories of caches.

While I agree that's a solution, I question if it's cost effective with regards to the incredible amount of ill-will over removed caches (either by the owner or caches people feel nostalgic about), the amount of work it would take for approvers, and the general disruption it would cause. If the bleeding is down to a reasonable level perhaps amputation, while a solution, isn't the best one.

 

As it is, physical caches tend to de-list themselves over time simply due to the fact that after X number of DNFs someone is going to raise the red flag. I'm not sure what would cause a virtual to de-list if the cache owner simply lost interest but with virtals having their own section in the future, that can be ironed out then.

 

Besides, even with the complete removal of grandfathering there will still be people upset because Cache X was approved but their cache was denied. They will be completely unable to understand the difference in those caches (even if everyone else does) and will flame the moderators in an effort to force geocaching to let them have their own way. If people can't understand the simple "Cache X is there because it was grandfathered" then they're not going to understand any of a dozen other reasons why one was approved and the other not.

Link to comment
While I agree that's a solution, I question if it's cost effective with regards to the incredible amount of ill-will over removed caches (either by the owner or caches people feel nostalgic about), the amount of work it would take for approvers, and the general disruption it would cause. If the bleeding is down to a reasonable level perhaps amputation, while a solution, isn't the best one.

 

One of the complaints one so often encounters in these forums is a (at least perceived) lack of consistency in the way this listing service is operated. Many people have complained, concerning many different topics and situations in many different threads, how so many of the decisions and policies appear to have been arbitrarily contrived and are inconsistent with other policies and decisions. So a decision to eliminate "grandfathered" caches and cache categories would appear, to me, to be one arbitrary decision that would instantly bring a great deal more consistency to the site.

 

As it is, physical caches tend to de-list themselves over time simply due to the fact that after X number of DNFs someone is going to raise the red flag.

 

That is only the case if a cache is being frequently sought. Many, many caches do not fit that description.

 

I'm not sure what would cause a virtual to de-list if the cache owner simply lost interest but with virtals having their own section in the future, that can be ironed out then.

 

If the owner of a virtual "lost interest," who is verifying the information required in order to claim the find?

 

They will be completely unable to understand the difference in those caches (even if everyone else does) and will flame the moderators in an effort to force geocaching to let them have their own way.

 

Yes, you make a good case for why moderators should not be approvers, and why approvers should not be moderators. If the approvers wanted to remain anonymous, they should not be participating in the forums wearing their approver's nametags.

 

If people can't understand the simple "Cache X is there because it was grandfathered" then they're not going to understand any of a dozen other reasons why one was approved and the other not.

 

If cache X is of a "non-complying" type or category and is allowed to remain listed on the site, then clearly, there is in fact nothing "unacceptable" about that cache category or type. People have pointed out that fact dozens, if not hundreds, of times in these threads, but the site operators don't seem to comprehend that simple fact any better than people comprehend why their cache was rejected. Apparently, it's a perfect marriage.

Link to comment
If the approvers wanted to remain anonymous, they should not be participating in the forums wearing their approver's nametags.

Just a slight clarification: None of the moderators in the most popular forums (Geocaching Topics, Geocaching.com and Getting Started) hides behind an anonymous account. Several, like myself, use separate accounts in order to make it clear which capacity we're posting in. In fact, a clear majority of all the volunteers do not keep their true identity a secret. It does remain an option for those who choose to do so, however.

 

Sorry to interrupt; back to your regularly scheduled topic.

Link to comment
If the approvers wanted to remain anonymous, they should not be participating in the forums wearing their approver's nametags.

Just a slight clarification: None of the moderators in the most popular forums (Geocaching Topics, Geocaching.com and Getting Started) hides behind an anonymous account. Several, like myself, use separate accounts in order to make it clear which capacity we're posting in. In fact, a clear majority of all the volunteers do not keep their true identity a secret. It does remain an option for those who choose to do so, however.

 

Sorry to interrupt; back to your regularly scheduled topic.

One more clarification on my way out the door:

 

If TPTB wanted to insulate the Approvers from the flaming/abuse they receive, the identities of the approvers would remain unknown. All issues regarding the approval/rejection process would be handled through a generic "contact" e-mail address and the names of the Approvers would not be displayed on cache pages.

 

The same would be true for Moderators. Generic titles (General Forum Moderator, Travel Bug Forum Moderator, etc.) would permit one or more individuals to serve in each position and would tend to minimize "personality" issues.

 

But in reality, I suppose it is only natural that people want/expect to receive recognition (which includes both praise and criticism) for their work, even if indirectly.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment

waypoint .org on the other hand has waypoints for things that I think noone cares about. Who cares about the intersection of 2 hiways unless you're lost

Just a note:

 

waypoint.org and listings of highway intersection waypoints is useful if you want to build a true-to-road path for your GPSr to follow as you drive from point A to point B so that you can know how far you have to go on a certain leg before needing to be aware of road signs for your next exit, etc.

 

They also have trail intersectors and everything else available for the same reason.

 

Waypoint.org is not about virtuals per se, but about waypoints and what they are waypointing...period. Their use is to build paths from waypoint to waypoint otherwise your GPSr will only tell you the straightest path from A to B and as we are all probably aware...that is not always the best way to get to point B.

Link to comment

Virts...wow where to begin. The notion that the basis of the sport is physical containers with stuff in them, then why do we have others? And why were they allowed in the first place. I know someone said that virts were (are) allowed where physicals aren't, but isn't the basis on a physical container? Theorretically from the "basis", there should only be "traditionals". No multi's, no micros, no webcams, no cito's, no events, and etc. But no one claims about getting those as a find. The nice thing is that on our own stats here on GC is that they are broken down into each one. Just as they are listed with those nice little icons when searching. And for us that use pq's, there are nice little checkboxes to use to get them or not. The fact is that they are available for those that want to find them and are just as easy to avoid for those who don't. A virt should have no bearing on whether a traditional can be placed there. Many people are only physically capable of doing virts. Many of those that disables as such probably pay their $30/year for the premium membership. Saying no to virts would be taking money out of the GC budget. Maybe not a lot, but some to toake notice.

 

My opinion is make virts acceptable, have guidelines for them of course so that there aren't zillions of them. Just don't have it where it's subjective to getting apporved by todays standards. Forget about the distance of them to traditionals. All in all as we have discussed before, make them like benchmarks. Caches get approved all the time that sit next to benchmarks. Benchmarks are only virtuals anyway as it is. I guess on the "basis" of the game, they shouldn't be allowed either.

Link to comment

I have been reading with interest the discussion regarding virtuals. I, too, just recently had a virtual denied. I personally love geocaching because I see new places and new things. Virtuals are my favorite kind of cache. I also believe that virtuals should be allowed because they can accomodate individuals with a variety of ability levels. I occasionally work with students who have severe physical disabilities. A current student that I teach is definitely wheelchair bound. Finding a micro or any physical cache is beyond her abilities. However she CAN hold a gpsr on her tray and write/record the answers to verify a virtual find. Allowing virtuals gives her the opportunity to participate in geocaching.

Link to comment

Yep, because the special object is then the ammo can.

 

So I suppose all those event "Caches" you have logged keep you up at night, dont they?

 

After all:

1. They need no GPS to find them.

2. There is no cache

3. They are the very definition of temporary cache.

 

Sounds like an amalgamation of Locationless, Virtual and Halloween caches to me

 

But slowly progress is being made. At least GC has restricted them now thanks to the cache machines.

Link to comment

Yep, because the special object is then the ammo can.

 

So I suppose all those event "Caches" you have logged keep you up at night, dont they?

 

After all:

1. They need no GPS to find them.

2. There is no cache

3. They are the very definition of temporary cache.

 

Sounds like an amalgamation of Locationless, Virtual and Halloween caches to me

 

But slowly progress is being made. At least GC has restricted them now thanks to the cache machines.

Oh, my! Excellent point, Ish-n-Isha! That should keep the thread alive a few more days! Very well said! :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I am new to the forum but not to caching, having been caching for over a year now. I really like virtual caches. Of the 280 caches I've done, 48 of them are virtuals. I can honestly say that I have never come away disapointed from a virt, which is something I can't say about some of the tupperware containers under a bush caches I've done. To me caching is all about getting out for adventure and learning new things about places or things I didn't know before adds a unique flavor to the over all caching experience.

 

I think that the current crackdown on virtuals is very unfortunate. Lets not forget that this is a sport of cachers, for cachers. I people stop creating new caches, in whatever variety, the sport WILL die. I'm not a fan of multi-caches. I don't however think that they should be eliminated. If you like a curtain type of cache, look for them. If you don't, don't look for them. It should be up to the individual cacher to decide what types of caching experiences they have, not the administrators.

 

I love this sport for the openess and flexablity it offers. I love the fact that I can incorporate it into my daily life. Hit a micro on the way to work. Bag a virtual while on vacation in the Grand Canyon. Let's not kill the one thing that makes caching and our country great, FREEDOM OF CHOICE!

 

Thanks for listening

 

AlphaCat

Link to comment

So I suppose all those event "Caches" you have logged keep you up at night, dont they?

 

The special 'object' in those cases are the cool people I meet.

 

Ish-n-Isha, I think you are missing my point. I have no problem with interesting virtuals. I personally think the guidelines for them are overly stringent these days. But I do understand why it is so; there were too many being submitted that failed Seneca's 'reasonable person' test.

 

But the problem is that there were (and are) unreasonable people submitting caches. There is a need for a line in the sand, and figuring out where that should be really sucks. As a community we cannot agree on anything, so trying to agree on what's just interesting 'enough' is impossible. Instead the folks at geocaching.com had to make a decision. They did so. If others in the community don't like that line, there's other options.

 

I reiterate; I like interesting virtual caches. This is not about banning them. But it is about trying to find a solution to yet another problem that has cropped up since the creation of this sport. If we can do this by coming up with creative ways to incorporate that unique location you found into a physical cache, then I don't see the problem.

Link to comment
Ish-n-Isha, I think you are missing my point. I have no problem with interesting virtuals. I personally think the guidelines for them are overly stringent these days. But I do understand why it is so; there were too many being submitted that failed Seneca's 'reasonable person' test.

 

I may be wrong, but I really don't think this is true. I believe the real problem was there were just too many virtual caches being created, in a game that was essentially meant for physical caches. The purpose of the current policy (in my view) is to limit the quantity of virtuals, not to limit bad virtuals. This policy would not be required if virtuals were banned from "Geocaching" altogether (which I have suggested in the past) and instead allowed in a different game called "Geo-waypointing/touring/sightseeing or whatever - which could also be hosted by this site in the same way that "Benchmarking" is.

Edited by seneca
Link to comment

I have seen too many times discussion of the Virtual problem usually getting framed by someone giving the example of the decaying rodent, tennis shoe, ect.

 

As I read the forums here, on policy issues, I see maybe 25% of the discussion on issues and 75% on the illogic and inconsistancy of the policies. Whether its the virt discussion, the 528' rule or whatever.

 

These could be solved easily at a 10% restriction level. In other words, 99% of all cachers would agree the decaying rodent or tennis shoe virt is un-approvable.

 

The problem where the rubber meets the road is that a 90%+ restriction is given as the solution to the 10% problem. In other words, restricting virts to the level that 99% of all cachers would approve.

 

This is too high a level.

 

Also from those I have seen argueing in favor of this 90%restriction level, I see illogical anomosity of virts and yet no problem what so ever in the lamest of all cache catagories "Event Caches" the very "combined" definition of the arguements they make against LC, VC and temp caches.

 

There is no inherent virtue in finding plastic boxes behind a tree. Live with it.

Link to comment

I just had a "traditional" cache blocked that was a great cache hid on an old train that sat in the middle of the town, b/c someone did a virtual about the signs in the town and one was within 500 feet of this cache.

 

The approver told me to ask them to "archive" it or for them to change the coordinates or I could wait b/c in the future "virtuals" may become like benchmarks and the cache would be ok'd.

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...