Jump to content

Virtual Caches Discouraged


catcher24
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Am I the only cacher who enjoys virtuals? I recently attempted to get a virtual approved. It was not approved. I can live with that; perhaps no one else would find a four story tall painting of a scene from I Love Lucy in her hometown worth seeing. The problem I have is that the approver informed me that the site is discouraging virtuals. Rather than a virtual, they would prefer to see a micro cache placed in the area, with directions to the virtual. My question is - why? I don't like searching for micros, especially in an urban environment and in the present terrorist times. People start to look at you, wondering what you are up to,when you begin looking under things, and into things, etc. I much prefer to follow the coordinates to the virtual itself, see what the placer wanted me to see, and then email them the answer to whatever question is needed to claim the find. I enjoy virtuals much more than micros. I have seen quite a few very interesting things via virtuals that I never would have known existed otherwise. And the need to locate a micro first seems superflous to me, and also a needless waste of time that could be better used finding more regulars or another virtual! I would like opinions on this. Perhaps I am the only one who feels this way. Either way, let me know. Perhaps if the powers that be see there is a fair amount of support for virtuals, they will be a little more receptive to them. Thanks in advance for your input. :(

Link to comment

Several reasons. Probably the most important was that when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaching, they frequently pointed to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. This endangered the concept of real caches in many areas.

 

Second, people were simply getting out of hand, making virtuals out of every roadside sign, flagpole and monument in existence, no matter how mundane. And of course there were the infamous sneaker in the woods, tennis ball, rotting animal carcass, manhole covers and fence posts that were submitted as virtual caches.

 

Third, TPTB wanted to get back to the original point of the sport, which was finding caches.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I to submitted a virtual a while ago that was denied.

 

I was told by the approver that turned it down, that if at all possible a physical cache had to be put in this spot, and they wanted to know why one couldn't be? If there was a good reason why a physical cache would not work here then the Virtual would be approved.

 

My response was that I did not get out that way very often and it would be harder to maintain a physical cache there.

 

I guess that wasn't good enough, because it was turned down.

 

I wondered if others were having troubles with Virtual caches?

 

I agree that sometimes a virtual cache can be more fun.

Link to comment

I have a number of thoughts on virts. Heres one of them.

 

By placing a physical cache, the cache "owner" is taking the liability (if it exists) for any issues that may arise. Since a virt has nothing to own, any liability basically falls directly to GC.com. It's a way for the company to be more secure from lawsuits....a required aspect of modern business.

Link to comment

Some virtuals seems to be challenging, and requires you to go to the spot. Others seems to be really lame, it's like:

 

"This is the grave of the famous composer Mozart. On his grave stone can you read which year he died. Mail us that year!"

 

Yeah right.. It takes about 2 seconds to find out the answer on Google.com :(

 

I have seen also cache pages where people has written the answer in the log, without encryption or similiar. Not that cleaver...

 

So, I would like to see better virtual caches AND better routines for the logs!

Link to comment

I like virtuals and I think they make the "sport" more accesible for those who enjoy seeing odd/unusual/unique fun things that aren't physically able to hike 2-3 miles etc.

 

I'd like to see a spin-off site for virtuals. I got a nasty reply once when I tried to submit a virtual in the Smokies (mind you physical caches aren't allowed there). The approver was not friendly nor did I even try to respond to someone who didn't even know their own rules. Oh well, live and learn.

 

Blah blah blah.

Link to comment

One more reason to add to BS's list of reason virts are pushed down the list of preferences; many people were placing virts when there very well could be a regular traditional placed. In short, laziness. This in turn blocked someone else from coming along and actually placing a physical cache because of the .1 mile rule.

 

My argument was for physicals to "trump" virts, but TPTB decided to disfavor them instead.

Link to comment

I don't care how many times I hear it, I won't agree. The lame virt excuse is just that-an excuse. How many lame caches have I been too? :( At least with a lame virt, you know it right up front, without digging around in horrid spots first.

 

I think the world is getting to the place where all we will be able to do is virtuals. It's getting crazy out there.

 

Sometimes you have to go to so many manipulations to avoid placing a virt, that it's ridiculous. Sometimes the place has real value. But how do you really get that across to an approver? And to have to twist yourself in knots to displace a cache, gets to the point where you are defeating the whole purpose of the cool virt in the first place.

 

People just give up placing good virts before they try, which is really sad.

Link to comment
I'll say it again. Waypoint.org is no more a cache than the tupperware isle at Walmart.

What about www.ecoscavenger.com?

 

Seems to me, people are going about it the wrong way. Instead of trying to force someone to change their private website in a way they don't want to, why not try and improve a site like ecoscavenger.com that WANTS your virtual listings?

Link to comment
People start to look at you, wondering what you are up to,when you begin looking under things, and into things, etc.

Sorry you are so self conscious. Finding well placed urban micros discreetly is an art. Placing urban micros that can be found discreetly is an art.

 

I much prefer to follow the coordinates to the virtual itself, see what the placer wanted me to see, and then email them the answer to whatever question is needed to claim the find.

 

Sounds more like geotravel.com.

 

And the need to locate a micro first seems superflous to me, and also a needless waste of time that could be better used finding more regulars or another virtual!

 

sounds like an oxymoron to me... and it also sounds like you just don't like micros.

Link to comment

I don't even bother with virtuals. I have one I racked up before I got my GPSr and found with just the maps and knowledge of the area. I can go sightseeing any time. I want to go CACHING. I want a box, a log, some crappy dollar store toys, wooden nickels, golfballs, pretty rocks and molding "Magic" cards.

 

And I want feast! I want a bean feast....

Link to comment
...What about www.ecoscavenger.com?...

This has potential but it's got a ways to go.

Which is my point.

 

Instead of trying to force Jeremy to do something with his website it seems he doesn't want to do, wouldn't it be more productive to try and help a site like ecoscavenger instead? I mean, there is a site that WANTS the exact type of caches that people are complaining arent getting listed here. Why not go there and try and change that site to be what YOU (the collective "you", not RK specifically)want it to be? Sounds like if you are going to try and force your ideas on how a website should be run, at least force it on someone receptive to the ideas.

Link to comment
...What about www.ecoscavenger.com?...

This has potential but it's got a ways to go.

Which is my point.

 

Instead of trying to force Jeremy to do something with his website it seems he doesn't want to do, wouldn't it be more productive to try and help a site like ecoscavenger instead? I mean, there is a site that WANTS the exact type of caches that people are complaining arent getting listed here. Why not go there and try and change that site to be what YOU (the collective "you", not RK specifically)want it to be? Sounds like if you are going to try and force your ideas on how a website should be run, at least force it on someone receptive to the ideas.

But, Mopar, you've been here long enough to see that they don't find any fun in that....why go there if there's nothing to pitch a fit about there? It's better to stay here and whine and complain to no end about the alleged lack of virtual approvals...... :(

Link to comment
...Which is my point.

 

Instead of trying to force Jeremy to do something with his website it seems he doesn't want to do, wouldn't it be more productive to try and help a site like ecoscavenger instead? I mean, there is a site that WANTS the exact type of caches that people are complaining arent getting listed here. Why not go there and try and change that site to be what YOU (the collective "you", not RK specifically)want it to be? Sounds like if you are going to try and force your ideas on how a website should be run, at least force it on someone receptive to the ideas.

Consider Two sites.

 

Site A. Does everything regarding virtuals about the way it should be done and the only real change is a simple change of a written rule. No coding required. Plus you allready use the site.

 

Site B. Is close but has a philosopy that doesn't quite line up with what you want out of a virtual location. To get them to use the vision that Site A taught you you have to have them change both written ideas on how it should be plus how the site is already done. On top of that you have to now split your focus from one site two two to get the most benefit from your hobby. One you allready pay site A for the privledge of playing.

 

It's a matter of perspective and degree.

Link to comment
It's Just plain and simple Some cachers Like Virtuals and some don't. Some approvers like them and some don't. The approver in my area (God bless him) Likes them. We had 2 new ones approved today I have 5 of them of my own.

Well, there are still guidelines set down by the owner of the site the cache reviewers are supposed to follow. I've heard of admins being removed in the past for not following them.

Link to comment
It's Just plain and simple Some cachers Like Virtuals and some don't. Some approvers like them and some don't. The approver in my area (God bless him) Likes them. We had 2 new ones approved today I have 5 of them of my own.

Our local approver is no big fan of virtuals. He tries to get people to actually place and maintain a cache. He allows them, usually after some argument, but he prefers a bit more effort.

Link to comment
It's Just plain and simple Some cachers Like Virtuals and some don't. Some approvers like them and some don't. The approver in my area (God bless him) Likes them. We had 2 new ones approved today  I have 5 of them of my own.

Well, there are still guidelines set down by the owner of the site the cache reviewers are supposed to follow. I've heard of admins being removed in the past for not following them.

Yup...that happened to me. Well....not really....but it could have! :(

 

....and this one time, at band camp....... :(

Link to comment
Our approver follows the guidelines He also approves Virtuals

Since I'm not in Utah, I'll have to take your word for it. Glancing at your recent virts, it looks like some are in parks. Since a virtual is only supposed to be for places you can't hide a real cache, I'll just have to assume your area doesn't legally allow physical caches, because I can see spots to hide one right in the pics.

Link to comment

Virtual caches = publish the coordinates of an interesting place on the Internet for those who want to use a GPS to find it.

 

Waypoint.org = publish the coordinates of an interesting place on the Internet for those who want to use a GPS to find it.

 

They seem to be pretty much the same to me.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
This in turn blocked someone else from coming along and actually placing a physical cache because of the .1 mile rule.

 

I recently had a virtual cache turned down, too. It was my very first cache, so I was really disappointed. They made it very clear that the main reason it was turned down was because it would block someone else from placing a regular cache within 528 feet. So I redesigned it, and made the virtual location the first stage in a two stage multi-cache. They were very quick to approve my new design, and two days later someone posted a FTF, along with a very nice note about how much they enjoyed solving it! So, in this case, I have to say they were right. It is a much more interesting cache now. Fitz Hugh Lane

 

But I wonder about that first stage... because it is now part of a multi-cache, doesn't that block someone else from hiding something near it anyway?

Link to comment

Not necessarily. If your first stage is a sculpture and someone wishes to place a cache 200' away this seems to fit within the guidelines.

 

The approvers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.
.

 

Since it's very hard to mistake the sculpture for a cache container, the approver may decide the guideline doesn't apply in this case. It's a judgement call like everything else.

 

The thing to remember is that when a approver makes a judgement call that you don't like it doesn't mean that they hate your cache, you, virtuals, or anything else. They simply made the call that they have to make. It may be the right call. It may not be. I'm sure they've turned down perfectly good caches and I'm sure they've approved caches that they wish they hadn't. They're human. But it's not personal and the person being turned down shouldn't make it personal.

Link to comment
Several reasons. Probably the most important was that when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaching, they frequently pointed to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. This endangered the concept of real caches in many areas.

 

My suspicions have been confirmed! That is pretty much what I have been saying. But the answer is that placers decide what kind of cache to place and if it doesn't get approved, then look at alternatives. You don't need to ask permission to place a virtual in the first place.

 

Second, people were simply getting out of hand, making virtuals out of every roadside sign, flagpole and monument in existence, no matter how mundane. And of course there were the infamous sneaker in the woods, tennis ball, rotting animal carcass, manhole covers and fence posts that were submitted as virtual caches.

 

So? They approve or reject regular caches based on qualities.

 

Third, TPTB wanted to get back to the original point of the sport, which was finding caches.

 

 

You mean like buried ones? DOH!

Link to comment
....I don't like searching for micros, especially in an urban environment and in the present terrorist times. People start to look at you, wondering what you are up to,when you begin looking under things, and into things, etc. I much prefer to follow the coordinates to the virtual itself, see what the placer wanted me to see, and then email them the answer to whatever question is needed to claim the find. I enjoy virtuals much more than micros......

My sentiments, too.

Link to comment
I'll say it again.  Waypoint.org is no more a cache than the tupperware isle at Walmart.

What about www.ecoscavenger.com?

 

Seems to me, people are going about it the wrong way. Instead of trying to force someone to change their private website in a way they don't want to, why not try and improve a site like ecoscavenger.com that WANTS your virtual listings?

Never heard of them. That might be neat. [edit] I see it is a Yahoo Group. Maybe not.

Edited by SamLowrey
Link to comment
I'd like to see a spin-off site for virtuals.

 

There already is. It's called http://www.waypoint.org.

I think he meant something usable! :D

 

I can see virtuals becoming a spin-off of geocaching.com like benchmarks are. They probably just shouldn't be mixed into the normal geocache database.

Hey now, why must Tix&Chiggers be a "HE." Sorry.... Just another Caching Chick here. :D

Link to comment
My question is - why? I don't like searching for micros, especially in an urban environment and in the present terrorist times. People start to look at you, wondering what you are up to,when you begin looking under things, and into things, etc. I

The problem is that the approvers think guide lines are rules that are etched in stone. In my area virtuals are going the way of the DooDoo bird.

There are area in which a micro just will not work, but a approvers just do not care. The approver have the power to be dictators and that is what they end up being in some cases.

 

I only look for micros in Urban areas, I will not bother with a micro where a reg cache will work. To hike in on a trail to find a micro in an area where you can hide a small truck is a waste of time. These types of micros should not be allowed they just promote people screwing up the enviroment. the only reason people place micros where a reg cache will work is because those people are to cheap to spend the money on a real cache.

 

Maybe we should have a new rule-Guideline. If you find a micro where a regular cache will work you can change it into a regular cache.

Edited by JohnnyVegas
Link to comment
Several reasons. Probably the most important was that when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaching, they frequently pointed to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. This endangered the concept of real caches in many areas.

 

My suspicions have been confirmed! That is pretty much what I have been saying. But the answer is that placers decide what kind of cache to place and if it doesn't get approved, then look at alternatives. You don't need to ask permission to place a virtual in the first place.

Not correct.

 

There are places where virtuals require permission as well. My "New Manchester" cache is one for example.

Link to comment
Several reasons. Probably the most important was that when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaching, they frequently pointed to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. This endangered the concept of real caches in many areas.

 

My suspicions have been confirmed! That is pretty much what I have been saying. But the answer is that placers decide what kind of cache to place and if it doesn't get approved, then look at alternatives. You don't need to ask permission to place a virtual in the first place.

Not correct.

 

There are places where virtuals require permission as well. My "New Manchester" cache is one for example.

That still strikes me as odd....that you have to have permission for someone to look at something.....I mean, if it was a virtual of the inside of AirForce One, I could understand, but permission to look at a waterfall, or a glacier (examples, only)?!?!?!? That's just something I still can't grasp..... :D

Link to comment
What about www.ecoscavenger.com?

 

This sounds like a good solution. The site looks promising. There are VERY FEW items there and the navigation is a little weak. Probably would do good to get some connection to gc.com or local caching groups in other parts of the country to expand the number of sites. Also a common terminology with the geocaching community would be helpful. Go ahead and call them virts.

 

The argument that lame virts were seen as a bigger problem than lame micros and trads is only partially valid. A lame micro can be denied approval easier than a lame virt as the mapping software used will put it in the parking lot of the walmart. Virts are lame for less obvious reasons. Like 400 Lewis and Clark monuments, of which precisely 6 have meaning. All 400 it seems have been made into geocaches. Figuring out which roadside marker is a bore and which is really important is easy when you read them, but not so easy for an approver in some other part of the country.

 

Also, lame virts seemed to multiply like a rapidly spreading tumor, quite rapidly (within a year), the lame virts so far outnumbered the good virts that it was genuinely difficult to sort them out.

 

Too be fair though, the virts got painted with the same skunk sap that oozed out of the locationless cache fad. LC's got to be truly over the top and cast an odor on all variant caches.

Link to comment
I don't care how many times I hear it, I won't agree.  The lame virt excuse is just that-an excuse.  How many lame caches have I been too? :D  At least with a lame virt, you know it right up front, without digging around in horrid spots first.

 

I have to agree with Ambrosia, how many lame caches are out there half full of water and the logbook is wet or the cache is in a not so impressive area. :D

Link to comment
That still strikes me as odd....that you have to have permission for someone to look at something.....I mean, if it was a virtual of the inside of AirForce One, I could understand, but permission to look at a waterfall, or a glacier (examples, only)?!?!?!? That's just something I still can't grasp..... :D

Even on public land there is a desire by the people responsible for maintaining that land to control the effect on the land by traffic. Some areas are only open at certain times. Some areas are off limit. Some areas turn out to have problems and access to those areas become restricted.

 

In these cases, the land managers do their best to make sure visitors enjoy themselves while remaining safe and keeping traffic damage under a reasonable level of control.

 

Virtual caches can be perceived as messing all that up.

 

"Here's a great place the rangers don't want you to know about" might really translate to "Here's a cool site with about 2 meters of earth between you and a cave-in" or "Here's a cool site that's taken so much damage that the wall carvings there are almost completely gone" or "Here's a cool site that happens to be the home to a bunch of mountain lions".

 

I can understand the rangers desire to restrict traffic. I may not always agree with it, but I understand that it's their responsibility.

Link to comment
That still strikes me as odd....that you have to have permission for someone to look at something.....I mean, if it was a virtual of the inside of AirForce One, I could understand, but permission to look at a waterfall, or a glacier (examples, only)?!?!?!?  That's just something I still can't grasp..... :D

Even on public land there is a desire by the people responsible for maintaining that land to control the effect on the land by traffic. Some areas are only open at certain times. Some areas are off limit. Some areas turn out to have problems and access to those areas become restricted.

 

In these cases, the land managers do their best to make sure visitors enjoy themselves while remaining safe and keeping traffic damage under a reasonable level of control.

 

Virtual caches can be perceived as messing all that up.

 

"Here's a great place the rangers don't want you to know about" might really translate to "Here's a cool site with about 2 meters of earth between you and a cave-in" or "Here's a cool site that's taken so much damage that the wall carvings there are almost completely gone" or "Here's a cool site that happens to be the home to a bunch of mountain lions".

 

I can understand the rangers desire to restrict traffic. I may not always agree with it, but I understand that it's their responsibility.

I guess if you put it that way, I understand.....still, I can't help but laugh when I think about some of it, though......

Link to comment

I've been caching about two years now and in those two years of caching I have learned a few things that make a cache an enjoyable experience or one that leaves a bad memory. I enjoy a traditional cache if I can find it and take the time to sign the log book with out worrying about people observing me and compromising the cache. After two years I don’t even bother to trade any more, to me the fun is in the hunt. I enjoy a virtual if it takes to me to an interesting place or teaches me some history about the area. I also prefer a virtual if it is in a high traffic area where a traditional cache might draw suspicion upon me, I refuse to search for traditional caches in high activity areas. I wish this site would hear the people and create their own section like benchmarks.

Link to comment

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to reply. Whether your with me or agin' me, it's good to have a variety of thoughts. I expected to get flamed, and wasn't disappointed - there are always a few who aren't content with simply voicing their thoughts. It seems necessary for some people to blast away. Oh, well. It helped to remind me why I stayed away from the forums for a while, and still don't post too often.

 

Some further thoughts on some of the posts:

BadAndy: I understand the point you are trying to make. It occurs to me, however, that a virtual is the LEAST likely type of cache to precipitate a lawsuit. A virtual is usually something originally placed by a public entity of some type for people to come and see anyway. They are almost always public areas. I may be missing your point somehow, but I don't see how anyone could sue gc.com for posting coordinates for people to come and see something that is in the public domain anyway. I CAN see how someone might sue gc.com for posting (and approving) coordinates to a cache that may be placed on private property (or public) without prior approval of the owner, and perhaps in a dangerous location besides. recently in this area a cache placer (who shall remain anonymous) put a micro next to a local establishment without consulting the owner. A cacher looking for it was approached by the owner of the establishment, who inquired what the cacher was doing. He was OK with the explanation (and the cache, luckily), but this is certainly a case where a lawsuit - or trespassing charge - is a definite possibility.

hedberg: The approver in your area must be a little more lenient than the one we have here. My try at getting the cache approved involved sending a photo of the proposed virtual first, along with a description. This would help, I think, to eliminate most lame virtuals.

Tix&Chiggers: Great idea! A separate area for virtuals would be excellent. And you know, it suddenly occurs to me that I probably like hunting benchmarks on that separate page because they are a form of virtual cache!

CoyoteRed: Good point, and valid. I guess it's just that I have always been pleased with the virtuals I have done - always an interesting site, and one I may not have known about otherwise, and have seen so many soggy regulars that made me sorry to have spent the time on them. Personal preference, I guess.

Navdog: Not self conscious - in my line of work it is impossible to be self conscious. I just don't like spending a lot of time looking for a tiny container in order to enjoy a virtual. Geotravel.com would be good. I don't think the fact I prefer to visit a virtual with some historical significance makes the game any less interesting than looking for a container with some trinkets hidden in the woods (don't get me wrong, I have done plenty of those and enjoy those, too!). And my statement is not an oxymoron - I would simply prefer to spend more time looking for other caches than trying to locate where someone hid a film canister. No, I don't hate micros - I have done them, and enjoy them. But I enjoy virtuals more.

Mopar: You always have good viewpoints, and are level headed. Please don't think I am trying to force Jeremy to do something he doesn't want. Look at it as a customer (premium member) voicing an opinion for a particular product (virtuals). I truly believe Jeremy has done a great job with the site, and I have gained much enjoyment from it.

Sparky-Watts: Not whining - see above. This is a GREAT website and I think Jeremy and the crew do a tremendous job. I am simply stating a preference, and doing a little survey work to see if others feel the same. If you checked my posts, you will see that I don't "whine". BTW, I presume that with that many posts, you are a premium member also, so again, look it as a customer voicing a preference for one product over another.

 

Again, thanks everyone for you input and comments - and keep on cachin'! :D

Edited by catcher24
Link to comment

The thing to remember is that when a approver makes a judgement call that you don't like it doesn't mean that they hate your cache, you, virtuals, or anything else. They simply made the call that they have to make. It may be the right call. It may not be. I'm sure they've turned down perfectly good caches and I'm sure they've approved caches that they wish they hadn't. They're human. But it's not personal and the person being turned down shouldn't make it personal.

Thanks bons, I needed that! But after putting so much thought and effort into designing my first cache, (it wasn't just an "oh, there's the statue, let's log the find" virtual, I turned the answers into riddles and puzzles that had to be solved and answered first), you tend to get a little defensive about it - ha-ha.

 

But you are right, the approvers are only human and base their judgements on the guidelines. I know someone who had a cache turned down initially, but after sending further explanation and some clarification about the location, the approvers changed their minds and approved it. So, if you feel that your cache has been unfairly turned down, don't give up!

Link to comment

Go through state by state and start in the midwest.  Aren't many there.

According to some people, there aren't many here anymore, either. :D

 

Seriously, that site is way better then the original geocaching website. This site has improved with age and popularity, so can that one. Now's your chance to get in on the ground floor.

I don't get it. On one hand, people complain this site is too big, too controlling, has a monopoly on geocaching, there needs to be alternative listing sites. Yet, these are the same people who also WANT gc.com to be the one portal site that lists every possible variation of geocaching. It can't be both ways.

 

There are variations of geocaching where gc.com seems to be lacking coverage. Locationless caches, virtual caches, traveling caches. If these are as popular and desirable as many people claim, then it looks like Jeremy is giving someone the perfect opportunity to build the killer alternative site, yet all people do is sit here and complain.

 

Ecoscavenger.com looks like it has the potential to grow beyond those few listings, just like geocaching did 3 yrs ago. I've seen plenty of offers here to help Jeremy code features they want into this website, how about offering that help to the owner of ecoscavenger.com now?

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

:D I too would like to know why Virtual caches are being discouraged.

This is a form of censorship, that we, as paying members, neither desire nor need!

Whose idea was it to Dis virtual caches; and why. I, for one, don't like the idea of someone, who knows nothing about the site I propose to do a virtual cache on, arbitrarily rejecting my request. Stating they don't want virtual caches is not a viable answer. I could care less.

 

:D Ron

Link to comment
Stating they don't want virtual caches is not a viable answer. I could care less.

 

:D Ron

Of COURSE it's a viable answer! This is a privately owned listing sevice for geocaches. They have every right to pick and chose what caches they want to host on their servers.

You wouldn't expect gc.com to be able to dictate what brand GPS you buy to geocache, why should you be able to dictate what "brand" of geocache they decide to list here??

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...