Jump to content

Virtuals


JohnnyVegas

Recommended Posts

I would seem that the approvers of virtuals have some type of a wow test to approve a virtual geocache. Of course only they know what that is. No where on the web site do they have example of what a wow test is. So how is anyone to know what it is. I recently tried to list a virtual for a location of an invention that is considered to be one of the most significant inventions of the 20th century. With out this invention there would be no internet as we know it. It is an invention that we all use every day. This is a Calif. state historic monument.

But acording the the all great powers that be, this does not meet a wow test standerd, What ever that is. I guess geocahe approvers know more than anyone else re what people are interested in.

I guess they do not want any one to know. If they let out the big secret who knows what might happen. There are some places in which a regular cache may not work, these are places of interest to some people and not to others. So we have to play this little game, find the monument then make it a two parter. I have a better idea, lets just ban all virtuals (They are anyway, they just will not admit it) and then lets archive all those that are already listed, I am serious about this, if they are not going to come up with a real guide line, they all need to go away. Saying there is a wow test is just a laugh to me. Just because an approver does not find something ineresting that does not mean others do not. I do not want to here this argument that comes up to just list it on another site, we all know that nobody use the other sites which we are not allowed to mention in here.

Link to comment
Yes, the virtual rules are strict, but you can always place a traditional nearby and mention that the monuments in the area and that it's worth checking out...

In most cities there may not be a place for a regular cache to work.

They should all be taken off the site and band like travelling caches are band

Link to comment
I recently tried to list a virtual for a location of an invention that is considered to be one of the most significant inventions of the 20th century. With out this invention there would be no internet as we know it. It is an invention that we all use every day. This is a Calif. state historic monument.

 

Could you have incorporated a real cache in any way? If yes, then it should have been rejected in its present form.

Link to comment
Yes, the virtual rules are strict, but you can always place a traditional nearby and mention that the monuments in the area and that it's worth checking out...

In most cities there may not be a place for a regular cache to work.

They should all be taken off the site and band like travelling caches are band

Most cities? Pray tell, just how many cities have you cached in?

 

Out of the 21 virtuals I've found, only one of those could not support a container nearby. That particular virtual is in an airport, so a container would be inappropriate due to security concerns. Every other virtual I've found could support being part of a multi-cache or function just as well with a container attached to the object.

Link to comment
I recently tried to list a virtual for a location of an invention that is considered to be one of the most significant inventions of the 20th century. With out this invention there would be no internet as we know it.

Al Gore would be a target that moves. It has to be a stationary target. :bad:

(Just kidding, of course.)

 

I don't think it is a matter that cache reviewers "know more than anyone else re what people are interested in". You did say that "This is a Calif. state historic monument." Monuments are specifically covered in the guidelines. It is a guideline though. Did you contact the person that reviewed the cache to see if it could be modified so that it could be approved?

Link to comment

I looked at your cache page and I see that it is a historical marker sign. As the reviewer noted, the answers to your verification question could be found through a quick Google search. The problem with most historical markers is that they're pictured or summarized somewhere on the internet. The reviewer also noted that someone else had previously submitted the same marker as a virtual cache, and also received an archive notice.

 

Normally when my family goes geocaching, nobody says "wow!" when they see a historical marker, all by itself. Near my home, there is a historical marker along the side of the road for an old iron furnace. I can drive by it at 30 mph and read it. But a local geocacher did one better: he set up a cache that requires a tough hike through the forest and across a wide, cold stream to the actual site of the iron furnace. When I saw the crumbling 220 year old stone ruins, I said "wow!" Under the current system, faced with a choice between having the historic marker as a virtual cache versus this challenging physical cache, this listing service gives preference to the physical cache.

 

In an urban location, hiding a physical cache can be a greater challenge, as you noted. In these cases a multicache is often a great solution - using information from the marker as clues to the final cache location. This is a win-win situation because the finder gets to see the point of historic interest AND gets to hunt for a physical cache.

 

You've obviously demonstrated your ability to work with the concept of a virtual multicache with your recently approved multicache. I read that cache page and I think it would be a great hunt. Thanks for setting it up.

 

Perhaps in the future, when virtual caches are handled differently on the website, we will not have so many frustrations of the type you complain of.

Link to comment
I do not want to here this argument that comes up to just list it on another site, we all know that nobody use the other sites which we are not allowed to mention in here.

We are allowed to mention Navicache here. You must be thinking about not being able to say Geocaching over there. :bad:

The last time I mentioned Navicache.com in these groups, my post was not allowed, that was over 6 months ago. Maybe there was a change in policy. I did put this Virtual on navicache.com not that anyone will ever look for it.

Link to comment
I looked at your cache page and I see that it is a historical marker sign. As the reviewer noted, the answers to your verification question could be found through a quick Google search. The problem with most historical markers is that they're pictured or summarized somewhere on the internet. The reviewer also noted that someone else had previously submitted the same marker as a virtual cache, and also received an archive notice.

 

Normally when my family goes geocaching, nobody says "wow!" when they see a historical marker, all by itself. Near my home, there is a historical marker along the side of the road for an old iron furnace. I can drive by it at 30 mph and read it. But a local geocacher did one better: he set up a cache that requires a tough hike through the forest and across a wide, cold stream to the actual site of the iron furnace. When I saw the crumbling 220 year old stone ruins, I said "wow!" Under the current system, faced with a choice between having the historic marker as a virtual cache versus this challenging physical cache, this listing service gives preference to the physical cache.

 

In an urban location, hiding a physical cache can be a greater challenge, as you noted. In these cases a multicache is often a great solution - using information from the marker as clues to the final cache location. This is a win-win situation because the finder gets to see the point of historic interest AND gets to hunt for a physical cache.

 

You've obviously demonstrated your ability to work with the concept of a virtual multicache with your recently approved multicache. I read that cache page and I think it would be a great hunt. Thanks for setting it up.

 

Perhaps in the future, when virtual caches are handled differently on the website, we will not have so many frustrations of the type you complain of.

I do not have a problem working with an approver on a cache as I did with my cache titled "Who is it" I do feal that virtual cches in urban areas should be easier to approve. In an urban area if you find a spot the you can hide a regular that spot more than often is used as a trash heap or as a urinal. Secondly, the subject matter of my "Genius" caches is one of the most important techological inventions of the 20th. century.

Link to comment
:bad: I am all new to this but how many times a week does this discussion come up?

I'm new too but I don't think I've ever seen a day without at least one thread like this open and being discussed.

 

This one appears to be a bit saner than the average. Some get a little more spastic.

 

It's been a couple days since anyone has gone ballistic over the .1 mile rule but I think we all needed a rest after the last one.

 

Edit: I'm trying to think of a day where someone hasn't complained either about their cache not being approved or their travel bugs being missing. Maybe the first couple days after the new forums went up, but I doubt we've gone a day without it since then.

Edited by bons
Link to comment

They used to say it had to pass the coffee table book test. Last time I was in hastings I looked at those books.

 

Evidently hastings has more confidence in peoples diverse intrests than GC does.

 

I had fleeting thoughts of finding the most inane boaring one I could find, scanning the cover pic and putting it on the web page as proof that it was coffee table book certified and that the location was in total keeping with the book.

 

Check out the Northwest forums. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=62123

A guy was going to be in Seattle and was looking for the best caches. The only one that had multiple recommendations was Kerry Park Viewpoint. AND GUESS WHAT????

 

You can find the answer on the net, and it was placed as a vacation cache!

If numbers arent an issue then so what if the answers are on the net? As to a vacation cache its a virtual that has been there since the early 70s and the park since what 1923? If the vacationer didnt put one there someone else would have.

 

The only losers at Kerry Park Viewpoint are the ones who DONT actually go there!

Link to comment

And in a few months when virtuals have their own section, this will probably no longer be an issue. But can people wait a little bit and show some patience knowing that TPTB are trying to make it easier for people to create and log virtual caches?

 

Nope. It's complain complain complain that today isn't perfect.

 

Just be glad Kerry Park Viewpoint isn't archived. One of the recent "I didn't get my virtual approved" threads had the suggestion that nothing should be grandfathered apparently because the fact that other people had similar virtuals still out there upset someone. (You do remember that old caches are grandfathered, don't you?)

 

So far the answer to this question has been the same every time:

1) Wait and resubmit your cache later after things have changed.

2) Listen to and work with your approver and see if you can create something different that still accomplishes your goals.

3) Throw a giant fit and quit, trying to upset as many people as possible on your way out and know that in a week you'll have been forgotten.

 

With #1 or #2 you may be remembered as the person who made that really cool cache, but #3 is definately a flame out job.

Link to comment
And in a few months when virtuals have their own section, this will probably no longer be an issue. But can people wait a little bit and show some patience knowing that TPTB are trying to make it easier for people to create and log virtual caches?

 

Nope. It's complain complain complain that today isn't perfect.

 

This has apparently been in the works for about a year and a half now. If there are firm plans for this site to create a separate game involving virtuals, then I think it would be helpful if a detailed statement of these plans were posted here along with an approximate launch date. That would probably shut me up (for a little while anyways :bad: )

Link to comment

I think they can not come up with the WOW factor because they are lacking in the intrinsic appreciation of fine art. It has to be a very tangible box of McD toys with a little notebook before they even realize that something is there.

I could rant and rant about good virtuals but why waste my time, we all know the promise to have a different section for virtuals is just a ploy!!

Link to comment
Yes, the virtual rules are strict, but you can always place a traditional nearby and mention that the monuments in the area and that it's worth checking out...

In most cities there may not be a place for a regular cache to work.

They should all be taken off the site and band like travelling caches are band

Most cities? Pray tell, just how many cities have you cached in?

 

Out of the 21 virtuals I've found, only one of those could not support a container nearby. That particular virtual is in an airport, so a container would be inappropriate due to security concerns. Every other virtual I've found could support being part of a multi-cache or function just as well with a container attached to the object.

Of the 27 Virtuals I have found in the past year, maybe 4 would be on my WOW list. Every one of them could be a mulit cache. I have geocaced in several urban areas in the San Francisco area, some large some small, all of them have very limited places for geacaches.

Link to comment
This has apparently been in the works for about a year and a half now. If there are firm plans for this site to create a separate game involving virtuals, then I think it would be helpful if a detailed statement of these plans were posted here along with an approximate launch date.

I think you are really hitting the problem on the head there, but it is one of those unspoken things. The people writing the code for this site take an amazing amount of time to get anything done. It is very frustrating when everyone is told that things will be in the new code base and we have been told that for a year maybe more. I think folks need to remember things happen on internet time.

 

If there are going to be changes made to handle virtuals then fine. But seeing the track record of how long things take to get done here at some point TPTB have to understand why people get annoyed. But, no they really don't, like they just don't care. And then will come all the people that will say how the site is fine, that it takes time to develop these things, they are willing to wait until TPTB are sure it is working right and not release something that won't work, blah, blah, blah. That is all fine but seeing how long this "alleged upgrade" to the code has been taking, just ask yourself if you employed these people to do a job for you would you put up with it? I know my butt would have been out the door a long time ago.

 

If I were them I would not give an approximate launch date. There is little chance that they will hit any deadline set. One can almost see the threads that will start then when the deadline passes. But on the other hand don't just start gutting the game because you have plans to make it different at some point off in the future. Oh sorry forgot this is "The Official Global GPS Cache Hunt Site". Cough.

Link to comment

Since JV and I are pretty close to the same area, and probably have the same Approver, I thought I'd throw in my 1/2 a brain cell on this one.

 

Of the three virtuals down in our area (one of which is mine) that have been approved since the moratorium, all were multi stage virtuals. The two previous virtuals to mine had at least three waypoints with questions to answer at each waypoint. My virtual was done in an area that caching was banned, so a virtual was the only way to put anything there. My virtual has multiple waypoints to gather some numbers up to put together the final coordinates.

 

All three virtuals require a bit of walking. Simply going up to a plaque, looking at something and recording a find isn't going to cut it IMHO.

 

Having looked at your most recent regular cache (Who Is It?), it appears that you're capable of putting together a more elaborate cache.

 

I'd suggest contacting the Approver, asking for suggestions and resubmit. It sounds like a worthy cache, it just needs a bit more work put into it.

Link to comment

I don't like virtual caches being part of GC.com at all. The closest unfound caches to me are all virts that could and should be traditional or multi-caches. They are in the woods! I want to place real caches there but can't due to the verts being there. I know 'grandfathered'.

 

As far as code needed to do verts just use the same code on a sister web page. That way verts won't interfere with actual caches but still have some sort of connection to gc.com. Do the same with locationless. If the code ever gets written the way they want it they can remerge then.

 

As far as stats and those worried about stats they will still have them.

Link to comment

And in a few months when virtuals have their own section...... 

 

You really have only been here a few months havent you? Do some research on the "moritorium" on locationless caches, how long has that been? Check out the time it took for the maps to work again.

 

So far the answer to this question has been the same every time:

1) Wait and resubmit your cache later after things have changed.

2) Listen to and work with your approver and see if you can create something different that still accomplishes your goals.

3) Throw a giant fit and quit, trying to upset as many people as possible on your way out and know that in a week you'll have been forgotten.

 

So there is no middle ground huh?

 

Either, let someone take something away from you that you already had for a couple years and say "thankya massa" for it...or

Stomp away mad?

 

What ever happened to a little discussion about it and GC proving to its members what all the "evil" is that made the changes imperitive?

 

(You do remember that old caches are grandfathered, don't you?)

 

If you had checked our profile you might have seen what newbies we are.

 

edit=sp

Edited by Ish-n-Isha
Link to comment
You really have only been here a few months havent you? Do some research on the "moritorium" on locationless caches, how long has that been? Check out the time it took for the maps to work again.

 

Yep. Only a few months. Just long enough to see a very quick response to the old forums being unable to withstand the load and see the new travel bug pages going up. I think the difference is that I choose to notice the things that are accomplished and appreciate them while some people here seem to focus only on the things that aren't done yet.

 

Either, let someone take something away from you that you already had for a couple years and say "thankya massa" for it...or

Stomp away mad?

 

What ever happened to a little discussion about it and GC proving to its members what all the "evil" is that made the changes imperitive?

It's been so long since I've seen a civil discussion in here I figured the people upset weren't even capable of it. I mean if someone is going to resort to lines like "thankya massa" then it seems to me that it's probably impossible to find any middle ground with them.

Link to comment
It's been so long since I've seen a civil discussion in here I figured the people upset weren't even capable of it. I mean if someone is going to resort to lines like "thankya massa" then it seems to me that it's probably impossible to find any middle ground with them.

The idea is the same one as you see posted in lunch rooms across the country.

 

"The beatings will continue until moral improves?"

Have you seen that one before?

 

Same thing.

 

The idea is the person, (employee in this case), has a loss or penalty, (in this saying, a beating, in the case of GC, 99% of virts restricted).

 

Thankya massa, conveys the message from your point of view that when this happens we arent supposed to be unhappy about it or do anything but count our blessings like Pollyanna. The other option you gave us as choice #3, I summerized as "stomp away mad".

 

I ask the question again, where is the middle ground?

Link to comment

 

I ask the question again, where is the middle ground?

 

 

Perhaps the middle ground lies in finding ways to place easily maintained physical caches nearby. That way folks get to see your Cool Thing, whatever it is, and the folks who want physical caches get what they want as well.

 

JohnnyVegas claimed that "In most cities there may not be a place for a regular cache to work." I know you know better than that. You've hidden some killer caches yourself, so why not encourage others to do the same?

 

Too often this debate revolves around 'why won't they approve my virtual?' when we might equally ask 'why won't you hide a physical cache nearby?'

Link to comment

 

I ask the question again, where is the middle ground?

 

 

Perhaps the middle ground lies in finding ways to place easily maintained physical caches nearby. That way folks get to see your Cool Thing, whatever it is, and the folks who want physical caches get what they want as well.

 

JohnnyVegas claimed that "In most cities there may not be a place for a regular cache to work." I know you know better than that. You've hidden some killer caches yourself, so why not encourage others to do the same?

 

Too often this debate revolves around 'why won't they approve my virtual?' when we might equally ask 'why won't you hide a physical cache nearby?'

That would be one argument if one was inclined to believe that a physical cache has some karmatic virtue in finding one, relative to a virtual.

 

Until recently virts had a 3 year history of being just a diffrent type, and now some are saying that they are somehow enherently inferior because 2 of the submited caches were about road kill and tennis shoes. (I generalize)

 

Can you defend restricting 90% of the virtuals because some of them were not up to what any one person would consider WOW?

Link to comment

It seems some people insist on being allowed to do virtuals no matter what the rules are. Perhaps those people are just trying to find a way to place a cache and not have any responsibility with maintenance for their caches. Simple, just place it and forget it.

 

Why go through all that work to find the perfect hiding spot if you don't have to?

 

Just curious,

 

John

Link to comment
It seems some people insist on being allowed to do virtuals no matter what the rules are. Perhaps those people are just trying to find a way to place a cache and not have any responsibility with maintenance for their caches. Simple, just place it and forget it.

 

I like the way you think

 

Virtuals account for less than 1% of our finds. Not because of any obhorence we have of them, but because thats how it turned out, and some people act like they are a rampant plague.

 

In our experience, we have seen a 1000% more traditional caches with 0% wow factor, and yet some think tupperware at a tree trunk somehow puts them higher on the food chain.

 

Virts account for a fraction of the caches in areas we have cached in. Many of you seem to have a density of virts on a par with D.C.

 

It seems more like some people cant be happy knowing other people like stuff that might be diffrent than them, and yet they are the ones with a choice. Hunt them or dont. But that isnt good enough for them. They want to restrict something that they themselves have no interest in. How elitist is that?

Link to comment

Ok here's my 2 cents.

 

I had an idea for a virtual that when I submitted I thought was just as good as the next virtual in my area, in fact I thought it was better! That being said, when I submitted it, the approver stated that I should do all the listed things (IE making it a multi or micro) or give them more information about the WOW factor. They stated that the whole process was open for discussion. When I pleaded my case as to why I believed my virt should be allowed I never got a response. Is that an open discussion? It has been well over a month since I have emailede the reviewer and I am not expecting any response anytime soon. I had no idea that this was such a hotbed issue amongst the players. I have just been spending the past month trying to figure out how to make my virtual into a multi cache. I figure it's gonna be a 5 step multi (2 virtuals, then a super micro(log only/corordinates only), then another coordinate only, and finally a regular size ammo can) that will take the hunter on an approximate 10 mile scenic drive that would have been the point of the first virtual I wanted to place. Lucky for me (?) this is in an area with no other caches, a lot of open space, almost all private land except the road right of way.

 

Does this sound like something I should be placing? I know I would hunt it, but would you?

 

And remember...

 

Peace!

Link to comment
It seems some people insist on being allowed to do virtuals no matter what the rules are. Perhaps those people are just trying to find a way to place a cache and not have any responsibility with maintenance for their caches.
Boy, that would make life easier. B)
Elitest is expecting everyone else to enjoy your historical marker as much as you do so much to the point that you must force them to read the marker instead of placing a cache nearby hoping they will also read the marker while they are there.
Yeah, why deny the cachers the added challenge of finding an object, and the satisifaction of signing a logbook?

 

On another tanget, how do you prove who is really FTF on a virt? There is no logbook, so a person who lives next door to the 200 year old schoolhouse can get back to his computer and log it faster than the guy who drives ten miles and actually found it first.

Link to comment
How elitist is that?

Elitest is expecting everyone else to enjoy your historical marker as much as you do so much to the point that you must force them to read the marker instead of placing a cache nearby hoping they will also read the marker while they are there.

So your point is you are confused and unable to read a cache page that says its a virt and is about a historical monument? B)

 

No one expects you to enjoy it, infact someone might not even care if you hunted it.

 

As far as forcing someone to find anything...that is too silly to repond to. B)

Link to comment

 

On another tanget, how do you prove who is really FTF on a virt? There is no logbook, so a person who lives next door to the 200 year old schoolhouse can get back to his computer and log it faster than the guy who drives ten miles and actually found it first.

Not being into the whole FTF thing I havent thought about that aspect.

For those who are, I'm sure a twist might be added for the first finder.

And...let me know when you do!!! B)

Link to comment
How elitist is that?

Elitest is expecting everyone else to enjoy your historical marker as much as you do so much to the point that you must force them to read the marker instead of placing a cache nearby hoping they will also read the marker while they are there.

So your point is you are confused and unable to read a cache page that says its a virt and is about a historical monument? B)

 

No one expects you to enjoy it, infact someone might not even care if you hunted it.

 

As far as forcing someone to find anything...that is too silly to repond to. B)

I said nothing about forcing them to find anything. Of all the virtuals I've found, they are designed to make the finder learn about the place. Of all the geocaches I've found, they were designed to get someone outdoors and use their GPS to find something. I haven't needed my GPS to actually 'find' any virtuals.

Link to comment
Ok here's my 2 cents.

 

I had an idea for a virtual that when I submitted I thought was just as good as the next virtual in my area, in fact I thought it was better! That being said, when I submitted it, the approver stated that I should do all the listed things (IE making it a multi or micro) or give them more information about the WOW factor. They stated that the whole process was open for discussion. When I pleaded my case as to why I believed my virt should be allowed I never got a response. Is that an open discussion? It has been well over a month since I have emailede the reviewer and I am not expecting any response anytime soon. I had no idea that this was such a hotbed issue amongst the players. I have just been spending the past month trying to figure out how to make my virtual into a multi cache. I figure it's gonna be a 5 step multi (2 virtuals, then a super micro(log only/corordinates only), then another coordinate only, and finally a regular size ammo can) that will take the hunter on an approximate 10 mile scenic drive that would have been the point of the first virtual I wanted to place. Lucky for me (?) this is in an area with no other caches, a lot of open space, almost all private land except the road right of way.

 

Does this sound like something I should be placing? I know I would hunt it, but would you?

 

And remember...

 

Peace!

Sounds like it could be interesting whether you have to change it to get it passed or as a virt.

 

So many of the multicaches these days are just busy work. Project a wp here, now go to there....bla...bla. The secret is to make each stage as good as the final, or a thematic buildup to the final.

Link to comment

 

On another tanget, how do you prove who is really FTF on a virt? There is no logbook, so a person who lives next door to the 200 year old schoolhouse can get back to his computer and log it faster than the guy who drives ten miles and actually found it first.

Not being into the whole FTF thing I havent thought about that aspect.

For those who are, I'm sure a twist might be added for the first finder.

And...let me know when you do!!! B)

I suppose requiring a pic of the time and coords on the finder's GPSr might work, but it could likely be faked easily. B)

A little too like locationless anyway... :blink:

Link to comment

I suppose requiring a pic of the time and coords on the finder's GPSr might work, but it could likely be faked easily. B)

A little too like locationless anyway... B)

Maybe.... How about your cell phone number written in chalk nearby and have to phone for the FTF? That would add some zip to a virt, heck I may even start to give a **** about FTF.

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...