Location Less And Virtual

[+St.Brendan]

Things I wonder about: Will the moratorium on location less caches and virtual caches be lifted? Could another site be developed in parallel with the main geocaching site to cover location less and virtual caches? I guess the term "Cache" doesn’t really apply, maybe call it something else. Location less caches are fun and sometimes a neat gathering of information about a topic if done right. Virtual caches also can take the "player" on a nice tour of places not normally visited. I've been to virtual caches close to home to a place I didn't even know existed. Still Virtual caches have to be done right to have a purpose.

[+briansnat]

Will the moratorium on location less caches and virtual caches be lifted

 

Tuesday

 

Could another site be developed in parallel with the main geocaching site to cover location less and virtual caches?

 

try www.waypoint.org

[+TeamK-9]

Actually, the moratorium only applies to locationless, if you're smart enough, and you're virtual is a cool enough idea, you can get it approved, but not unless it's good...

[+Mopar]

Things I wonder about: Will the moratorium on location less caches and virtual caches be lifted? Could another site be developed in parallel with the main geocaching site to cover location less and virtual caches? I guess the term "Cache" doesn’t really apply, maybe call it something else. Location less caches are fun and sometimes a neat gathering of information about a topic if done right. Virtual caches also can take the "player" on a nice tour of places not normally visited. I've been to virtual caches close to home to a place I didn't even know existed. Still Virtual caches have to be done right to have a purpose.

The new site is up and running. HERE

[+mtn-man]

Actually, the moratorium only applies to locationless, if you're smart enough, and you're virtual is a cool enough idea, you can get it approved, but not unless it's good...

What they said.

[+Renegade Knight]

Sorry guys. Waypoint.org and Ecoscagenger are not substitutes for virtual caches any more than a blow up doll is a substitute for a woman.

Edited March 20, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+The Leprechauns]

Fine. If you prefer hearing things like "Not tonight, I have a headache" and "You DID take out the garbage first, right?" and "Beige, I definitely think we should paint the ceiling beige," then suit yourself. For me, silence is golden. And I'm happy to wait quietly for the new virtual/locationless section of the site, too.

[PC Medic]

Curious as to why you don't think either of those (waypoint.org or ecoscavanger) could be substitutes for a place to list a virtual. While I am not 'real' familiar with either site, I have taken a quick look and ecoscavanger is a type of Virtual.

 

In any case Virtuals have always been welcome HERE and while moving/traveling caches are also considered, locationless rarely are.

Edited March 20, 2004 by PC Medic

[+wildearth2001]

Will the moratorium on location less caches and virtual caches be lifted

 

Tuesday

 

I have a feeling you are not serious, are you??

[uperdooper]

virtuals are being approved in michigan.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Will the moratorium on location less caches and virtual caches be lifted

 

Tuesday

 

I have a feeling you are not serious, are you??

Actually it's the second Tuesday of next week.....

[+St.Brendan]

Actually, the moratorium only applies to locationless, if you're smart enough, and you're virtual is a cool enough idea, you can get it approved, but not unless it's good...

OK I'll go along with that, A virtual needs to be significant

[Geo Sooner]

I have tried to to have three virtuals approved. All being what in my opion are significant. They have been at a historic park, a cemetary, and a dam. There is no place for a regular cache in these locations. I have been denied and told to use the locations as a point on a multicache or place a regular cache instead. I asked the porperty owners to place a regular cache near the cemetary and was denied. This information was included in the submission, yet it was still denied.

I enjoy the virtuals more than the regular caches, because they usually take you a place that is interesting or beautiful. I am not about getting numbers, and I don't like caches placed in trash piles and behind a wal-mart. For my 2 cents, I say let's get the virtuals back and stop placing caches just because there is not one there yet. For me caching is about finding interesting, historical or beautiful places.

[uperdooper]

I have tried to to have three virtuals approved. All being what in my opion are significant. They have been at a historic park, a cemetary, and a dam. There is no place for a regular cache in these locations. I have been denied and told to use the locations as a point on a multicache or place a regular cache instead. I asked the porperty owners to place a regular cache near the cemetary and was denied. This information was included in the submission, yet it was still denied.

I enjoy the virtuals more than the regular caches, because they usually take you a place that is interesting or beautiful. I am not about getting numbers, and I don't like caches placed in trash piles and behind a wal-mart. For my 2 cents, I say let's get the virtuals back and stop placing caches just because there is not one there yet. For me caching is about finding interesting, historical or beautiful places.

strange. you cannot place a traditional cache at a dam. i can't see why that one wasn't approved.

[+bons]

Personally, I'd find a place you could put a cache and then just make one hell of a long multi.

 

Actually, I'm really starting to appreciate long multis. Take me to 5-10 really cool sites all over the place. It works for me.

[+briansnat]

Sorry guys. Waypoint.org and Ecoscagenger are not substitutes for virtual caches any more than a blow up doll is a substitute for a woman.

 

Why not? You use a GPS to guide you to a place of interest. The concept is exactly the same. The only real difference is that you don't get to log a find here and up your counts, but its all about the hunt anyway. Right?

 

strange. you cannot place a traditional cache at a dam. i can't see why that one wasn't approved.

 

But is a dam a place of significant interest? Hoover Dam, probably, but the dam for your local duck pond, no.

 

If Geo Sooner uses his imagination, I'm sure he could work in a real cache. Why not use a date on an interesting tombstone in the cemetery, or a something from a display in the historic park to give an offset to a nearby real cache?

Edited March 22, 2004 by briansnat

[+DK-Kronborg]

Well it seems like everyone has an opinion, but no one has the answer to the question:

 

When will the moratorium on location less caches be lifted?

Edited March 22, 2004 by DK-Kronborg

[+Mastifflover]

Well it seems like everyone has an opinion, but no one has the answer to the question:

 

When will the moratorium on location less caches caches be lifted?

The only one that know that is the staff of Gc.com. and their not telling.

[+briansnat]

When will the moratorium on location less caches be lifted?

 

It should be interesting when it is. I never listed a locaionless, but since the moratorium was imposed, I've thought of several interesting ones. I'm sure I'm not alone. They're going to have to hire a crew of temp approvers to handle the deluge!

[Team GeoHoy]

When will the moratorium on location less caches be lifted?

 

It should be interesting when it is. I never listed a locaionless, but since the moratorium was imposed, I've thought of several interesting ones. I'm sure I'm not alone. They're going to have to hire a crew of temp approvers to handle the deluge!

One word: Ditto

[+bons]

Given the number of people who get upset that their virtual is denied, I'm thinking that unless virtuals and locationless get their own section like benchmarking, it's more likely that the virtuals will go the way of the benchmarks before benchmarks come back. And I suspect that will be a trip without a return ticket.

 

Actually, I'm expecting micros to follow the virtuals just because of the way people complain about them...

[Team GeoHoy]

Kinda looks like our sport is really growing when stuff like this is happening. I have done 6 virtuals over the weekend and enjoyed them. I like getting out and sight seeing and reading the history of the locations. It is motivation to get out. I probably would not have gone to look at the historic buildings over the weekend with my wife if it wasn't for us moving out of the area and seeing some locationless caches while we were out. Did some benchmarks too.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Actually, I'm expecting micros to follow the virtuals just because of the way people complain about them...

I don't think micro's will go away regardless of how many whiners on a forum bitch about them. There are many places where only a micro will work. In fact there have been cachers who've run with this lame micro complaint and started a series of "lame" caches on their own.

 

For Example: Lame Caches

 

For every handful of forum micro whiners there are tens of thousands who are out finding and enjoying them every day.

[+briansnat]

Given the number of people who get upset that their virtual is denied, I'm thinking that unless virtuals and locationless get their own section like benchmarking, it's more likely that the virtuals will go the way of the benchmarks before benchmarks come back. And I suspect that will be a trip without a return ticket.

 

If locationless get their own section, like benchmarks, will the finds be separated out from people's counts the way they do for benchmarks? If that happens, I certainly see a firestorm generated when people wake up one morning to see their find count drop by 15, 50, or more. If that happens, we'll get to see how many of the people who claim it's "all about the hunt" are really full of bologna.

 

For Example: Lame Caches

 

like this?

Edited March 22, 2004 by briansnat

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Perfect Brian. I have plans to place "another lame micro in a parking lot under a lightpole" soon.

[+Renegade Knight]

To respond to Briansnat and PC Medid:

 

Geocaching has a certain look and feel to it, for lack of a better description. While there is debate, locationless and virtuals do have that geocaching feel. Perhaps not so much for the absolute description but because of how they are handled on this site.

 

It is about the hunt, the logs, the time it took someone to make the cache, and how they all fit together in your geocaching experience, be it virtual, locationless, or traditional. They all come into play.

 

Ecoscavenger looks promisting but it's not there yet. Waypoint.org is handy for finding points of interest, but hey, I have those on my GPS and I don't make a game out of hunting them.

Edited March 22, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[Radman Forever]

Given the number of people who get upset that their virtual is denied, I'm thinking that unless virtuals and locationless get their own section like benchmarking, it's more likely that the virtuals will go the way of the benchmarks before benchmarks come back. And I suspect that will be a trip without a return ticket.

 

If locationless get their own section, like benchmarks, will the finds be separated out from people's counts the way they do for benchmarks? If that happens, I certainly see a firestorm generated when people wake up one morning to see their find count drop by 15, 50, or more. If that happens, we'll get to see how many the people who claim it's "all about the hunt" are really full of bologna.

 

For Example: Lame Caches

 

like this?

Yeah, I wonder the same thing. I don't have any locationless, but I have 20+ virtuals that I have found. I am two away from celebrating #200 and would be disapointed to have those finds erased beause some people don't like them and had them removed as real finds!

[+res2100]

If locationless get their own section, like benchmarks, will the finds be separated out from people's counts the way they do for benchmarks?  If that happens, I certainly see a firestorm generated when people wake up one morning to see their find count drop by 15, 50, or more.  If that happens, we'll get to see how many the people who claim it's "all about the hunt" are really full of bologna.

I agree, there will certainly be many unhappy people if their numbers all of a sudden dropped overnight. I think the solution and right thing to do would be to leave the current counts for our finds and existing locationless caches as they are. And hopefully the same problem won't happen than what happened a little while ago when the system for logging Travel Bugs changed...that seemed to cause a big problem and a lot of bugs incorrectly having to return to people's inventory or having unintentially added ficticious mileage.

 

For any new locationless caches created, then those should be added to the new section, just like the benchmarks have their own section. Also, allow all locationless caches, even if it is something lame...isn't that why we have a 1/1 rating? For the easy to get to, easy to find, and common items?! I also think the rules should be changed considerably also, as I have a lot of ideas. Some things would be, Locationless caches must be available worldwide, and not something that can only be found in one region or one state (ie, Ohio Historical Markers). Also, make the requirement for pictures optional. We are all honest people, and just like logging a traditoinal cache or a benchmark, we take people's word that they found it for granted. We are all honest enough not to steal the cache either, which would be a lot worse than someone saying they found a cache when they didn't. Also, to continue with my initial point, instead of calling them locationless, perhaps come up with a new name for these...perhaps have a contest to name the new type of locationless cache and the winner gets a t-shirt or prize package from gc.com. Just some thoughts.

 

...it's not just about the numbers, it's primarily about the hunt and adventure, but the numbers DO matter too!

Edited March 22, 2004 by res2100

[+Mopar]

If the numbers DO matter, as the last poster attests, then the only fair thing WOULD be to remove the count to their own section, like benchmarks. Sure, I would lose a ton of "finds", but so would everyone else, so we would all be even. What wouldn't be fair, if the numbers matter, is for some people to have inflated counts based solely on the date they found it.

I still like the idea of removing the total find count. Leave it broken down in the profile. Then each of us can play the game the way we want. If we want to count LCs we can. If we want to count benchmarks or TBs as finds, fine. You add the numbers up however makes you happy, and I'll add them my way. Heck, some of us would even start logging other types of caches we don't log now, because they wouldn't get mixed in with other types.

Edited March 23, 2004 by Mopar

[+res2100]

then the only fair thing WOULD be to remove the count to their own section, like benchmarks. Sure, I would lose a ton of "finds", but so would everyone else, so we would all be even.

 

Since everything else is grandfathered here, why shouldn't our finds on Locationless caches? That's the fair thing to do. I think by removing the locationless find count from peoples find totals would mess too many people up. I keep track of all my finds in an Excel Spreadsheet, and I always make sure that total # of finds in my Excel spreadsheet matches to what it says on geocaching.com. I do not want to see my find count drop, as it is important to me...a sense of accomplishment...if my locatoinless caches were suddenly removed from my find count, then the only thing I can think of doing to get my find count accurate again with my Excel Spreadsheet is to log all these finds on one of my archived caches just to get my numbers accurate again (it would take some time, but I would not hesitate to do it...I can see everyone complaining already at this thought ). I was never a big fan of locationless caches, but I started to find them because when I started all the other cachers in my area were logging finds on them too. If any one of the exiting cache types that are currently part of one's total find count are removed (which I doubt would be), then the stats WOULD become meaningless and inaccurate...even more so than someone logging a few fake finds.

 

Perhaps if a new locationless section is implemented (again, perhaps give it a new name for this new section), archive all of the existing locationless caches and start fresh with the new section.

 

Or, just totally not bother with a new locationless section and keep the moratorium forever...it's been a year already, and there hasn't been any visible progress to indicate that it would end anytime soon...just a lot of people saying they would like to see the moritorium end. Ya, the more I think about it, lets just keep the moratorium indefinately. I think making Virtuals easier to list should be more of a priority than bringing back locationless caches. I really do enjoy virtuals...they are in most cases a lot more enjoyable than traditionals, because of the information I usually aquire from them, and I seem to spend more time at the virtual area than a physical cache.