Should A Physical Cache Trump A Virtual?

[WH]

This discussion was started in another thread and it was suggested by KA that a whole new topic be opened to discuss it.

[+Smitherington]

If they are both up for approval at the same time, yes.

 

If the virtual is already in existance, the physical should not be able to cause it to be removed.

[+Mopar]

This discussion was started in another thread and it was suggested by KA that a whole new topic be opened to discuss it.

No. As was mentioned, there would surely be a few (probably sockpuppet-style) cachers who would make it their mission to toss a 35mm film canister at the base of every virtual location possible. The physical would "trump" the virtual, causing the virtual to be archived. Of course, the micro, laying on the ground in the open, probably wouldn't last past the 1st finder. Then it would go missing, and eventually be archived. Because of the current guidelines, many older virtuals would not be able to be re-approved at the location, and even if they were, someone would just toss a micro at it. Hell, you wouldn't even really HAVE to place the cache. Just SAY you did. The virt would still be archived, and when there are a string on DNFs on your non-existent micro, archive it.

[+Mastifflover]

If they are both up for approval at the same time, yes.

 

If the virtual is already in existance, the physical should not be able to cause it to be removed.

Yep what he said.

[WH]

The discuusion in the other thread pertains to the placement of a new physical cache within .1 mile of an existing virtual. Should the physical cache force the archiving of the virtual, or should the physical cache be denied until its relocated greater that 528ft from the virt?

[Find Now, Log Later?]

No. As was mentioned, there would surely be a few (probably sockpuppet-style) cachers who would make it their mission to toss a 35mm film canister at the base of every virtual location possible. The physical would "trump" the virtual, causing the virtual to be archived. Of course, the micro, laying on the ground in the open, probably wouldn't last past the 1st finder. Then it would go missing, and eventually be archived. Because of the current guidelines, many older virtuals would not be able to be re-approved at the location, and even if they were, someone would just toss a micro at it. Hell, you wouldn't even really HAVE to place the cache. Just SAY you did. The virt would still be archived, and when there are a string on DNFs on your non-existent micro, archive it.

It's amusing that you discuss "what would happen" (people would, invariably, toss film canister micros at the sites of existing virtual caches) and then elaborate on "what it would cause to happen." (The archived virtual cache would not be reinstated because it would not be in accordance with current guidelines.) The scenario, as presented, is truly absurd.

 

I support the concept of virtual caches, but agree that the establishment of a virtual cache should be reserved for areas where it is not possible, or is prohibited, to hide a physical cache. In this thread and the other, it is being presumed that people would hide only micro caches at virtual sites ... and low-quality micro caches, at that. There is no basis for that presumption. There is also neither (at least, as of this date) restriction nor prohibition against the hiding of micro caches, lame or otherwise.

Edited April 16, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+briansnat]

Absolutely not. And I'm no big fan of virtuals either. I just think that once a cache is approved and listed, unless it is causing problems, or found to be in violation of the guidelines, it should be up to the owner whether or not it should be archived.

[+woof n lulu]

The discuusion in the other thread pertains to the placement of a new physical cache within .1 mile of an existing virtual. Should the physical cache force the archiving of the virtual, or should the physical cache be denied until its relocated greater that 528ft from the virt?

Should the physical cache force the archiving of the virtual.

 

In a word, NO

 

Why should the owner of the virt, who has worked just as hard to make sure the guidelines on their virt have been met and approved, be punished and have it archived.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Absolutely not. And I'm no big fan of virtuals either. I just think that once a cache is approved and listed, unless it is causing problems, or found to be in violation of the guidelines, it should be up to the owner whether or not it should be archived.

Since BrianSnat spoke up strongly, I'll use one of his virtual caches as an example. In the days before it was required to supply the approvers with the coordinates for the intermediate stages of multicaches (and also in the days when microcaches were both a rarity and an oddity), BrianSnat placed a virtual cache smack in the middle of a "virtual-multicache" tour of mine. No big deal; I archived my multicache because it hadn't been that successful and Brian's new virtual brought people directly to the highlight of the tour.

 

Skip ahead a couple of years, and microcaches are "all the rage." There are literally thousands of safe potential hiding places within .1 mile of Brian's virtual cache that could be utilized to create a well-conceived "microcache-multicache." Further explorations of the area have also revealed quite a few areas where full-sized "traditional" caches could be safely hidden.

Edited April 16, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+Renegade Knight]

It's a good question because the long term solution to Virtuals is to have their own section like Benchmarks do now. Benchmarks don't trump anything.

 

There are cases where a virtual should block a traditional. My one and only virtual cache at present is one of them. It's there because the local grotto threatened to steal any physical cache placed near this particlualr cave. To actually place a physical cache there is asking for trouble.

 

In most cases though I don't think there should be an issue with overlap between virtuals and traditinal caches. If you are looking for tupperware you are not going to accidentaly find the third word on the 4th line of the plaque and call it a find.

Edited April 16, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+JohnnyVegas]

The discuusion in the other thread pertains to the placement of a new physical cache within .1 mile of an existing virtual. Should the physical cache force the archiving of the virtual, or should the physical cache be denied until its relocated greater that 528ft from the virt?

No, it is to close to begin with, the micro would have to be moved, maybe a reg cache should trump a micro in a reg cache will work in the same place

[+eigengott]

Should the physical cache force the archiving of the virtual, or should the physical cache be denied until its relocated greater that 528ft from the virt?

Or shoukd the party, which believes a physical is possible instead of the virtual, contact the owner of the virtual und try to convince her/him to do this conversion?

[+briansnat]

Since BrianSnat spoke up strongly, I'll use one of his virtual caches as an example. In the days before it was required to supply the approvers with the coordinates for the intermediate stages of multicaches (and also in the days when microcaches were both a rarity and an oddity), BrianSnat placed a virtual cache smack in the middle of a "virtual-multicache" tour of mine. No big deal; I archived my multicache because it hadn't been that successful and Brian's new virtual brought people directly to the highlight of the tour.

 

Skip ahead a couple of years, and microcaches are "all the rage." There are literally thousands of safe potential hiding places within .1 mile of Brian's virtual cache that could be utilized to create a well-conceived "microcache-multicache." Further explorations of the area have also revealed quite a few areas where full-sized "traditional" caches could be safely hidden

 

When I listed that virtual , I had no idea it was part of BP's virtual tour. A mistake on my part. But he archived his, so I left mine. I agree that there are a number of places where a real cache could be hidden nearby and thought about placing one and archiving my virt, but its a high crime area with a number of homeless folk hanging out and the ocassional drug dealer. I figure someone wandering around with a GPS lookin for a cache in the bushes might draw some unwanted attention, so I've left it as a virtual, so people can go there, get the info and split.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Should A Physical Cache Trump A Virtual?

never

[Find Now, Log Later?]

...but its a high crime area with a number of homeless folk hanging out and the ocassional drug dealer.

You see, I created my "virtual-multicache" to bring people to the inner city to help dispell such fears that are, in large part, not based on fact.

 

It's off-topic, but I have to mention that I found some of your comments to be highly ironic. Having sat on a Federal Grand Jury for the past year and a half, the number of major crime (including drug and weapon) cases we heard targeting individuals residing in or near gated suburban communities outnumbered the cases targeting inner city people. I would suggest that anyone who thinks a homeless person asking for spare change is a sign of criminal activity should stop and consider for a minute how some of their neighbors with no visible means of support are financing their ostentatious McMansions.

Edited April 16, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+RIclimber]

In most cases though I don't think there should be an issue with overlap between virtuals and traditinal caches. If you are looking for tupperware you are not going to accidentaly find the third word on the 4th line of the plaque and call it a find.

Like This?

[WH]

In most cases though I don't think there should be an issue with overlap between virtuals and traditinal caches.  If you are looking  for tupperware you are not going to accidentaly find the third word on the 4th line of the plaque and call it a find.

Like This?

Which one wins there?

[evilrooster]

I think ammo boxes should trump tupperware, higher difficulty caches trump lower difficulty caches, and caches whose names start earlier in the alphabet should be able to bump those whose names start later. After all, there's so little planet to hide things in.

[+Mopar]

It's amusing that you discuss "what would happen" (people would, invariably, toss film canister micros at the sites of existing virtual caches) and then elaborate on "what it would cause to happen." (The archived virtual cache would not be reinstated because it would not be in accordance with current guidelines.) The scenario, as presented, is truly absurd.

You really find that so absurd? Which part?

 

The part about an anti-virtual person tossing sacrificial micros (or not even actually physically placing one, just submitting a cache page for one) just to get a virtual archived?

I don't think that scenario is absurd. Not when we already have people that "pirate" caches they don't like. Not when we already have people posting archive requests on caches they don't like. Not when we have people posting spoilers for puzzle caches because they don't like the hider. Not when we have people who hide behind sockpuppet accounts to post things to the forums and cache logs.

 

Or did you mean the part about the archived virtual not getting re-approved because it no longer meets the guidelines?

Many older virtuals are grandfathered. There are many out there that were approved in the past, that would never be listed on this site today. The very fact that someone can hide a micro nearby pretty much guarantees (under the current guidelines) that a virtual won't be approved.

 

Besides, even if the virtual WAS re-approved, then what? It would be a vicious cycle for the hiders, the cachers, and the reviewers. Hide micro. Archive Virt. Archive missing micro. Approve virt. Hide micro. Archive virt. Archive missing micro..... and so on and so on and so on. One could only hope that some sane cacher could sqeeze in there and hide a decent cache nearby in between all the game-playing.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

This discussion was started in another thread and it was suggested by KA that a whole new topic be opened to discuss it.

No. As was mentioned, there would surely be a few (probably sockpuppet-style) cachers who would make it their mission to toss a 35mm film canister at the base of every virtual location possible. The physical would "trump" the virtual, causing the virtual to be archived. Of course, the micro, laying on the ground in the open, probably wouldn't last past the 1st finder. Then it would go missing, and eventually be archived. Because of the current guidelines, many older virtuals would not be able to be re-approved at the location, and even if they were, someone would just toss a micro at it. Hell, you wouldn't even really HAVE to place the cache. Just SAY you did. The virt would still be archived, and when there are a string on DNFs on your non-existent micro, archive it.

I like the way you think. I'm going to start "placing" caches near every virtual in my area just so the virtuals will go away.

 

Since physical caches are the basis of the activity, they should be able to "take the location away" from a virtual cache. The way the guidelines read, virtuals are only allowed in places that physical caches can not be placed. If someone later places a physical cache there, then they have proven that the virtual violates that guideline. The virtual should be archived.

Edited April 16, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Why should the owner of the virt, who has worked just as hard to make sure the guidelines on their virt have been met and approved, be punished and have it archived.

Because they were obviously too lazy to design a container that would fit the location.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

It's a good question because the long term solution to Virtuals is to have their own section like Benchmarks do now. Benchmarks don't trump anything.

Hear Hear!

 

Ideally, this is the best solution, but we've been discussing it for 2 years now.

[+woof n lulu]

As someone who has had 4 virtuals approved in the last six months, and one in the works, I don't think it is a matter of laziness. I worked darn hard on them, and made sure they would fit the guidelines. Three of the virtuals are a series, not a multiple, but all inter-related. The other is on Federal land, and is in it self a location that is unusual for the area. After all is said and done, you can't base worthiness on something you have not seen for yourself, so how can you judge if a physical could have been done there.

 

I know alot of people have a "thing" for virtuals, but that doesn't seem to matter.

The matter of the fact is that we have had over 30 finds on one of our virtuals with lots of positive feedbacks. We take the time to email everyone back in a timely manner. If laziness was involved I would not bother to even start the process.

[+Renegade Knight]

In most cases though I don't think there should be an issue with overlap between virtuals and traditinal caches.  If you are looking  for tupperware you are not going to accidentaly find the third word on the 4th line of the plaque and call it a find.

Like This?

Which one wins there?

That's funny. They had to cooperate for that one.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

As someone who has had 4 virtuals approved in the last six months, and one in the works, I don't think it is a matter of laziness. I worked darn hard on them, and made sure they would fit the guidelines. Three of the virtuals are a series, not a multiple, but all inter-related. The other is on Federal land, and is in it self a location that is unusual for the area. After all is said and done, you can't base worthiness on something you have not seen for yourself, so how can you judge if a physical could have been done there.

 

I know alot of people have a "thing" for virtuals, but that doesn't seem to matter.

The matter of the fact is that we have had over 30 finds on one of our virtuals with lots of positive feedbacks. We take the time to email everyone back in a timely manner. If laziness was involved I would not bother to even start the process.

That's just it though. You say you worked hard on getting a virtual approved in that location. Did you even attempt to place a traditional? If not, you aren't following the guidelines.

 

The guidelines don't care if a cache is "worthy" of the location, just that a physical has precedence over a virtual. A virtual, however, must be "worthy of being in a coffee-table type book" or something.

 

If you really want to highlight a historical marker, make it a multicache where people must visit the marker to get the cache coordinates.

[+woof n lulu]

As someone who has had 4 virtuals approved in the last six months, and one in the works, I don't think it is a matter of laziness. I worked darn hard on them, and made sure they would fit the guidelines. Three of the virtuals are a series, not a multiple, but all inter-related. The other is on Federal land, and is in it self a location that is unusual for the area. After all is said and done, you can't base worthiness on something you have not seen for yourself, so how can you judge if a physical could have been done there.

 

I know alot of people have a "thing" for virtuals, but that doesn't seem to matter.

The matter of the fact is that we have had over 30 finds on one of our virtuals with lots of positive feedbacks. We take the time to email everyone back in a timely manner. If laziness was involved I would not bother to even start the process.

That's just it though. You say you worked hard on getting a virtual approved in that location. Did you even attempt to place a traditional? If not, you aren't following the guidelines.

 

The guidelines don't care if a cache is "worthy" of the location, just that a physical has precedence over a virtual. A virtual, however, must be "worthy of being in a coffee-table type book" or something.

 

If you really want to highlight a historical marker, make it a multicache where people must visit the marker to get the cache coordinates.

Did I attempt to place a physical cache?...no.

Did I think about it and try to come up with a solution?...yes...for hours.

Would I replace one of my virtuals with a cache if the chance should arise (i.e. additions of apperatise, shrubbery, benches, or, muggles in large numbers suddenly disappear, etc. ...yes

 

I'm thinking TPTB have decided that some people do actually know how to judge if somethings will work, or if another avenue must be taken.

[+RIclimber]

In most cases though I don't think there should be an issue with overlap between virtuals and traditinal caches.  If you are looking  for tupperware you are not going to accidentaly find the third word on the 4th line of the plaque and call it a find.

Like This?

Which one wins there?

That's funny. They had to cooperate for that one.

The Virtual cache was archived, I hid mine, then about a month later it was un-archived. I don't know why it was un-archived.

[+JMBella]

Since BrianSnat spoke up strongly, I'll use one of his virtual caches as an example. In the days before it was required to supply the approvers with the coordinates for the intermediate stages of multicaches (and also in the days when microcaches were both a rarity and an oddity), BrianSnat placed a virtual cache smack in the middle of a "virtual-multicache" tour of mine. No big deal; I archived my multicache because it hadn't been that successful and Brian's new virtual brought people directly to the highlight of the tour.

 

Skip ahead a couple of years, and microcaches are "all the rage." There are literally thousands of safe potential hiding places within .1 mile of Brian's virtual cache that could be utilized to create a well-conceived "microcache-multicache." Further explorations of the area have also revealed quite a few areas where full-sized "traditional" caches could be safely hidden

 

When I listed that virtual , I had no idea it was part of BP's virtual tour. A mistake on my part. But he archived his, so I left mine. I agree that there are a number of places where a real cache could be hidden nearby and thought about placing one and archiving my virt, but its a high crime area with a number of homeless folk hanging out and the ocassional drug dealer. I figure someone wandering around with a GPS lookin for a cache in the bushes might draw some unwanted attention, so I've left it as a virtual, so people can go there, get the info and split.

And THAT was the hightlight of the tour?

[BassoonPilot]

I don't think that scenario is absurd. Not when we already have people that "pirate" caches they don't like. Not when we already have people posting archive requests on caches they don't like. Not when we have people posting spoilers for puzzle caches because they don't like the hider. Not when we have people who hide behind sockpuppet accounts to post things to the forums and cache logs.

You know Chris; I've reconsidered. You are on to something there. Everyone should do exactly as they please. If someone notices that a cache has been placed in obvious violation of the guidelines or local law, one shouldn't write a SBA log ... certainly, it is impossible that the cache was approved in error. After all, no cache approver in his right mind would approve a cache where the seeker had to leave a path, go around a fence, and then climb out on the structure of a bridge. No cache approver in his right mind would approve a cache that requires the seeker to trespass on railroad property. Especially not when a quick review of that cache owner's history shows an assortment of "issues."

 

Instead, the first person who notices the violation, or perhaps more accurately the first person who recognizes the violation and gives a "hoot" about the future of the game, should simply contact the property owner and/or controlling agency of the location of the offending cache. Forget about logging an SBA ... we know that the "acceptable owner response" is to post lies about the individual who raised the concern. And, of course, for the cache owner to harrass that individual on other cache pages.

 

Yeah, you're on to something there, Chris. Nobody wants any "vicious cycles," so perhaps people should just take matters into their own hands. I recommend contacting the controlling agency; others may favor simply collecting illegal caches and tossing them into the nearest garbage receptacle.

Edited April 16, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[CoyoteRed]

Personally, I wouldn't archive the existing virt. So what if someone can rack up two finds in one spot.

 

The whole idea of virts was to show off a spot where you couldn't hide or maintain a physical cache. If someone can place a viable cache there, then they should be able to do it.

[+CO Admin]

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

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

[+fly46]

In most cases though I don't think there should be an issue with overlap between virtuals and traditinal caches.  If you are looking  for tupperware you are not going to accidentaly find the third word on the 4th line of the plaque and call it a find.

Like This?

Which one wins there?

Of course, here's my question...

If you're an approver, and you suddenly see:

I hid this when I found the Virtual cache

in the page description.... Would you approve the second cache? The second guy didn't even bother to give it a different name.

[+Renegade Knight]

Fly46

 

The second cache owner probably liked the location enough to bring it back into the caching world with a tradional cache. The original cache was archived at the time. Like they said. They don't know why it came back but it did and I don't see a problem with them co-existing.

 

While I fight like heck to get my caches listed, especially if I'm bending a rule I try not to second guess approvers and other cache owners cache plaments, permission, or rules. To date out of 580+ caches I've sent two emails pointing out a placment issue to relative newbies and once sent I didn't look back.

Edited April 16, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[bug and snake]

I must be missing a point here.

"to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another"

I can't see any reason why the .1 rule applies in the case of a trad cache and a virtual. They are not really likely to be confuzed are they!

What am I missing?

[+TEAM 360]

As someone who has had 4 virtuals approved in the last six months, and one in the works, I don't think it is a matter of laziness. I worked darn hard on them, and made sure they would fit the guidelines. Three of the virtuals are a series, not a multiple, but all inter-related. The other is on Federal land, and is in it self a location that is unusual for the area. After all is said and done, you can't base worthiness on something you have not seen for yourself, so how can you judge if a physical could have been done there.

 

I know alot of people have a "thing" for virtuals, but that doesn't seem to matter.

The matter of the fact is that we have had over 30 finds on one of our virtuals with lots of positive feedbacks. We take the time to email everyone back in a timely manner. If laziness was involved I would not bother to even start the process.

That's just it though. You say you worked hard on getting a virtual approved in that location. Did you even attempt to place a traditional? If not, you aren't following the guidelines.

 

Now since WHEN do Virts don't even count as a cache? There should be no "trumping" of Virts, because as a cache, they are entitled to the .1 mile rule, aren't they?

The OK Corral down here in AZ is MY virtual cache.

Did I try to place a traditional? No. It's out of respect for such a historical place.

Am I too lazy? No. Well, except for Sunday mornings.

Am I following the guidelines? Yes.

Should a Physical cache "trump" a Virtual cache? Never.

 

Not everyone like Virts. Not everyone likes micros. One size does NOT fit all, so we should have different types of caches for everyone out there. Following the guidelines in cache placement should ensure that caches do not "override" one another.

 

Different strokes for different folks, Saxy...even YOU have some of those Virts that are historical roadside markers...the ones you are so against...and some of those logs indicate that you LIKED them...

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Different strokes for different folks, Saxy...even YOU have some of those Virts that are historical roadside markers...the ones you are so against...and some of those logs indicate that you LIKED them...

I have found some lame caches also, but I don't write that in my logs either

[+TEAM 360]

In fact, almost 10% of your total amount of caches found have been Virts...

Hmmmmm.....

 

Hehehehe.....

[+Team GPSaxophone]

In fact, almost 10% of your total amount of caches found have been Virts...

Hmmmmm.....

 

Hehehehe.....

...but only 10% of those had logs where it appears I enjoyed them

[Cholo]

trump trump

Is there no escape from the Donald?

[+Renegade Knight]

I must be missing a point here.

"to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another"

I can't see any reason why the .1 rule applies in the case of a trad cache and a virtual. They are not really likely to be confuzed are they!

What am I missing?

If the confusion of finding one cache while looking for another was truly the entire reason for the 0.1 mile rule the distance would be something less than that.

 

Unless of course they were worried that Selective availability were to be turned back on...

[+WaldenRun]

Should A Physical Cache Trump A Virtual?

I would ask, "Should A Virtual Cache Trump A Phyical?"

 

One of the first micros in MA was Proof of Concept. It eventually was archived after going missing. I was thinking about resurrecting it (via adoption), when I discovered a virtual had been placed 50 FEET (!) away.

 

I decided the virtual should stand.

 

-WR

Edited April 17, 2004 by WaldenRun

[+Albino Parrot]

It's a good question because the long term solution to Virtuals is to have their own section like Benchmarks do now. Benchmarks don't trump anything.

I agree with RK. This idea should satisfy everyone, ....shouldn't it?

 

P.S.- Do the polls work in this forum?

[Tahosa and Sons]

If a virtual has been approved then it should stay in place until the Cacher owner decides to archive it. And if a cacher who didn't like virtuals were to place a traditional cache just to eliminate a virtual that cacher would really be a spoiled brat. Virtuals don't do any harm to this game, there are lame virtuals and lame traditionals, nothings perfect.

 

I recently placed a traditional micro real close to an existing virtual, but contacted the approver prior to placement. And my virtual and micro share the same corner and one does not deter from the other.

[CoyoteRed]

Virtuals don't do any harm to this game...

Not true.

 

One of the major points back when this was discussed many moons ago was something that Eric (I think) pointed out. If virtuals were every bit as good as physical caches, then land managers would point to this and deny physical caches in their charges. Eric is an approver and I believe he mentioned it had nearly happened, but I'm not sure. He can set me straight on this.

 

See, if land managers think that virts are, in our eyes, every bit as good as physical caches, and given the fact there is nothing to worry about on his land as being thought of as a bomb, then he would likely only allow virtual caches. As other land managers review the policies of other parks, more and more will do the same thing. Eventually and potentially, the only thing left to hunt is virts.

 

That's one of the major reasons that virts have been frowned upon.

 

While hindsight is 20/20, if we were discussing creating a virtual cache type today, knowing what we know, there is a very good possibility that virts wouldn't even exist.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I would just as soon do a virtual as a traditional myself. If traditionals were totally banned it wouldn't bother me in the least.

 

But I"ll hunt them all.

[CoyoteRed]

If traditionals were totally banned it wouldn't bother me in the least.

I can say the same if virtuals were banned.

[Tahosa and Sons]

One of the major points back when this was discussed many moons ago was something that Eric (I think) pointed out.  If virtuals were every bit as good as physical caches, then land managers would point to this and deny physical caches in their charges.  Eric is an approver and I believe he mentioned it had nearly happened, but I'm not sure.  He can set me straight on this.

 

See, if land managers think that virts are, in our eyes, every bit as good as physical caches, and given the fact there is nothing to worry about on his land as being thought of as a bomb, then he would likely only allow virtual caches.  As other land managers review the policies of other parks, more and more will do the same thing.  Eventually and potentially, the only thing left to hunt is virts.

 

That's one of the major reasons that virts have been frowned upon.

Yea I can remember what Eric said, I was the receiver of that rant. And experience is the key.

 

Then if Virtuals do harm why do these caches co-exist and the land managers from two different agencies haven't even said squat.

 

1. UTM - The Virtual With a 3.5 star for terrain.

 

2. The Ghost Trail - Traditional

 

3. Gliddens Wares - Traditional

 

4. Trails End - Traditional

 

And in another area.

1. Homestead Meadows - A virtual with a 4 star terrain.

 

2. A Geo-Tour - No container with this one And approved by Eric.

 

3. Geo-Teering - Surprise Cache. no container and also approved by Eric

 

4. Lions Ridge - The Traditional

 

And in another area: With different land agencies

1. Lest we Forget - A Vritual Approved by Eric

 

2. The Original Cache - A virtual about a real Cache that predates Ulmers Beans And was approved by Eric

 

3. The Puma - A traditional - Can you guess who approved this one.

 

Eric: This is not intended to belittle you in anyway, so don't take it as such. Just to clearly express my belief that a Virtual will not harm a traditional. Its the quality of the cache and the positive relation I've worked to build with the local officals.

[Bluehook]

...the first person who notices the violation, or perhaps more accurately the first person who recognizes the violation and gives a "hoot" about the future of the game, should simply contact the property owner and/or controlling agency of the location of the offending cache. 

Of course, if you really “give a hoot” enough to “contact the property owner and/or controlling agency,” you had better have the backbone to at least sign your name and supply your address with your letter. If you send it anonymously, it generally isn’t taken seriously by anyone and no action will be taken. And writing the address on the envelope by hand in your own very familiar handwriting, doesn’t help much to keep your efforts clandestine anyway. It’s just a waste of a stamp, or in your case, two stamps. Nice try sad man.

[+Boot Group]

I was surprised while reading the logs of this forum that virtuals are not that highly regarded in some instances. I have found that the virtuals in my area are just as exciting as regular caches. One virtual I saw is in a place that has a National Monument, so I think it comes under the no National Parks rule. It was a great spot. The others I've been to have been places where there are lessons to be learned through the cache. For Example, one was historical, and another gave me an excellent art lesson about a famous sculptor. The owners of the caches were also very thoughtful about making them meaningful. For example, two of them I had to do further research after caching (local library), and another the "owner" of the cache provided further information about the cache once you answered all the questions. May be I'm just lucky, and live in an area where virtuals are not that simple.

[+RIclimber]

In most cases though I don't think there should be an issue with overlap between virtuals and traditinal caches.  If you are looking  for tupperware you are not going to accidentaly find the third word on the 4th line of the plaque and call it a find.

Like This?

Which one wins there?

Of course, here's my question...

If you're an approver, and you suddenly see:

I hid this when I found the Virtual cache

in the page description.... Would you approve the second cache? The second guy didn't even bother to give it a different name.

I hid the Traditional cache and listed it on some other site. When I saw the Virtual was archived because of the owners email address, I also listed it on this site.

What would you call a cache at the Tri-state marker?

 

PS- If a cache needs to be re-approved, How did it get by with "If you want to prove you were there..."