Jump to content

Read Today's Cacher This Month (may)


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Everyone who enjoys virtuals (but ESPECIALLY Jeremy and the PTB) needs to review the article about Dave Ulmer in the May issue of Today's Cacher. I find it most interesting that the Father of Geocaching chooses to find mainly virtual caches, which he says take him to beautiful places he would not find otherwise (I agree completely). This is especially interesting in light of the fact that the Powers That Be at geocaching.com are trying very hard to eliminate virtuals! There have been other threads about this issue, without any give on the part of the PTB. Please, Jeremy and the PTB, review this article and RETHINK your position on virtuals! Incidentally, TPTB encourage the use of a micro in the area, rather than a virtual (why can't I just go to see the virtual without scrounging around for a micro?). Anyway, I find it really interesting that JMARAC (who has placed some of the best caches I have found) has an article IN THE SAME ISSUE of Today's Cacher, BEMOANING THE GROWTH OF SO MANY MICROS!! I wonder, do TPTB themselves read Today's Cacher? These two articles seem to fly in the face of the current philosophy that presently exists on geocaching.com regarding virtuals and micros. Just food for thought. Feel more than free to express your comments!

Link to comment

I recently archived one of my caches that was a great hike and a great destination. New rules have sprung up in the park system where it was that made it too expensive to keep in place. The rules are still in flux, so hopefully they will improve. If they don't, I may submit a virtual at the spot (virtuals are free and favored in the new rules). I never intended to place a virt, but this has given me a good reason to do it.

 

It got me thinking, though, that because my goal was less to place a cache than to bring people on this hike, there ought to be a website where people can post waypoints and routes specifically for nice hikes. Is there such a site? If so, I might post it there rather than make a virtual out of it. Or maybe both.

Link to comment

Most all geocachers like a traditional more than a virtual all other things being equil. The find of an object counts for something more than finding verification on a virtual. I defend often in these forums virtuals. However if all parks start leaning the way the Dino's park does better to dump them entirly than lose what I like most about this RASH.

 

Dinoprophet I think you are looking for ecoscavenger.com

Link to comment
there ought to be a website where people can post waypoints and routes specifically for nice hikes. Is there such a site?

Doesn't Navicache.com allow virtuals? That might not be a good alternative since so few people visit that site. I've only been there twice myself - once several months ago when I heard about it and was not impressed at all, and again just now to check on the spelling errors on the front page. I wanted to see if they were still there before I replied here.

 

For those errors to be around for so long, it says something to me about the quality of the site.

Link to comment

Ummm, yes, the powers that be DO read "Today's Cacher." More closely than you'd imagine. Also, look at the sponsors list for the e-zine.

 

If you enjoyed JMarac's caches because you live in the Erie area, watch for a fantastic new virtual cache that will be released this weekend in connection with the NWPA Geocachers event cache. It'll make you say "WOW!"

Link to comment

Dave had a good point about virtuals, hower, he never dreamed that caching would reach the point that it did. Way back in the early days virtual caches were of the type that Dave hunts today.

 

As the sport grew people started flooding the site with virtual caches, many not worthy of hunting, much like the lame caches we see now. People were only interested in posting numbers, not quality. The PTB were forced to make a decision, control the quality or allow the site to be trashed. I personally believe that they made the right decision.

 

I've never logged a virtual cache, but I've been to many. I like Dave, I don't believe they should be called a cache, because in the truest sense, they aren't. I do believe that they should still be listed if worthy of the hunt. I also believe that the worthy ones are listed.

 

Dave also mentioned that he only hunts caches that take him to great spots. He may or may not log them. It's the location that interest him. In todays caching there are so many lame caches hidden with little or no thought. If people would give more thought to what and where they hid caches we would all enjoy them more.

 

With all that being said, it should be noted that the first cache that Dave hid to start this great sport was a cache that he wouldn't hunt today.

 

El Diablo

Edited by El Diablo
Link to comment
...People were only interested in posting numbers, not quality...

That's a generalization and most likely not accurate.

 

If all the great spots are taken why blame a newbie if they want to place a cache in the best of what's left? Why punish them for their original idea that you have seen before? Placing a lame cache takes more work than finding a lame cache.

 

TBTB were not forced to make any decision whatsoever. Forced is a strong term. It's like someone had a gun to their head. They chose. They chose to limit virtuals and they chose to allow "lame" traditionals. I support the latter decision. I don't support the former.

 

I also do not agree that only the good ones get through or that only the bad ones are not approved. It's subjective decision each and every time. Something approvers should not have to deal with. The only thing they should be asking is if the answer is something that can't be found on the internet with an easy search. But then approvers are not TBTB they work for them. They might have a stronger power of suggestion but they can be 'fired' for whatever that means for not following the company line.

Link to comment
why can't I just go to see the virtual without scrounging around for a micro

You can

 

You do not have to look for the cache. You do not have to log a find. You can visit the location, write a note saying how much you enjoyed it, and get on with your life. This is perfectly acceptable.

 

I recently went to a nice park I didn't know about, had a great time, ran around with my son, took a walk to the micro and logged a DNF saying what a great time I had and sorry but I wasn't in the mood to look for a needle in a haystack that day. Maybe some other day.

 

There is nothing wrong with just going there and having a good time.

Link to comment

I have logged 10 virtuals and enjoyed each one of them. Some of them took me to "sweet spots,' as mentioned by Dave Ulmer, and some of them were not exactly sweet, but interesting historically.

 

GC.com does allow virtuals, and they're apparently attempting to limit them to the "sweet" ones. I look at that limiting aspect as a good thing.

 

I have also developed a desire to seek out urban micros, good ones. I wish there was a way in the guidlines to control the quality of those.

 

There are plenty of lame virtuals and lame micros and lame just about any other type of cache you can name.

 

As I have said before, the search starts right in front of your moniter. To find the sweet caches, you have to research. I've found the best way to research is to read the cache pages and (at least some of) the logs.

 

There are plenty of sweet caches (virtuals and micros included) out there, too.

And, BTW, I like the "sweet" traditionals the best. :unsure:

Link to comment

One of the nice features of Today's Cacher is the diversity of its staff and writers, who are as different as every individual who will read the online magazine. If it appears that one article "contradicts" the content of another, it's because they were, most likely, written by two different people with differing outlooks on caching.

 

There are those who enjoy virtuals, and those who don't. The same can be said for micros. As one of the editors and writers for Today's Cacher, I'd like to think that there are articles that will appeal to everyone, "powers that be" and politics aside.

Link to comment
Dave had a good point about virtuals, hower, he never dreamed that caching would reach the point that it did. Way back in the early days virtual caches were of the type that Dave hunts today.

 

As the sport grew people started flooding the site with virtual caches, many not worthy of hunting, much like the lame caches we see now. People were only interested in posting numbers, not quality. The PTB were forced to make a decision, control the quality or allow the site to be trashed. I personally believe that they made the right decision.

 

I've never logged a virtual cache, but I've been to many. I like Dave, I don't believe they should be called a cache, because in the truest sense, they aren't. I do believe that they should still be listed if worthy of the hunt. I also believe that the worthy ones are listed.

 

Dave also mentioned that he only hunts caches that take him to great spots. He may or may not log them. It's the location that interest him. In todays caching there are so many lame caches hidden with little or no thought. If people would give more thought to what and where they hid caches we would all enjoy them more.

 

With all that being said, it should be noted that the first cache that Dave hid to start this great sport was a cache that he wouldn't hunt today.

 

El Diablo

Well said, El Diablo.

 

If virtuals are that interesting to so many people, then why don't they start their own "Geo-sightseeing" web site? Oh, I guess they aren't that interesting.

 

Sure, I like it when a cache is placed in a great spot. maybe there's a good view, some historical site, or whatever. However, I play this game to find a hidden box of stuff that has a logbook in it. If I want to learn about whatever it is they put on historical markers, I'll visit another site.

Link to comment

Thanks to all for some good replies. I also enjoy a good traditional cache. I don't mind micros per se. Urban micros concern me somewhat (as they do Marac) due to the fact people are suspicious about what you are up to! Years ago, it probably wouldn't have bothered me, but in today's situation, they might end up calling the authorities. I wanted to place a virtual, but the PTB insisted on a micro directing to the virtual. There was no place close by to put a micro without possibly creating problems for searchers, as the virtual was near both the city building and the county building, so I just gave it up.

Renegade : I enjoy virts as much as traditionals, although I readily admit if you have a child with you, they much prefer traditionals, because of the reward. Most caches, I'll let my daughter pick something, then I'll leave something in it's place. There just isn't usually anything I am interested in, although there have been exceptions (and TB's I'll always take, but that's another story).

Keystone Approver: Thanks for the heads up. I'll be watching for it! Marac's were the best; too bad some people couldn't leave them alone.

Wolfwalker: Thanks, I have checked out that site. There were no hikes for my area, as they didn't have a rep for this area yet. I seriously thought about it, but already have too many irons in the fire. Perhaps when I retire in a couple of years...

Bons: Agreed, you can do that. There is just something in my makeup that demands I find the cache, if it is still there. I have been directed to some really great spots for traditionals. It doesn't seem that micros are placed in locations that are as attractive. I find in this area that micros tend to be placed in cemeteries or small urban parks, which is fine. The parks are usually worth visiting. Virtuals have always taken me to an interesting location.

GPSax: I think geo.com is the BEST site, without question. At this point, I don't wish to reinvent the wheel. Virtuals ARE that interesting to me. Unfortunately, as indicated above, I have too much going on already to attempt something like creating a website. Anyway, it would rather be like reinventing the wheel. I just wish TPTB would reconsider. They could demand a picture of the virtual and other pertinent information about the site be submitted prior to approval, in an attempt to weed out the "lame" virts.

 

Anyway, thanks to all for the great posts. Caching has taken me to some great "sweet" spots that I wouldn't have known about otherwise, so I certainly will continue to cache regardless of whether I'm seeking traditional, virtual, or micro caches.

Link to comment
If virtuals are that interesting to so many people, then why don't they start their own "Geo-sightseeing" web site?

Well, it's not as robust as I'd like, but there is Wayhoo.com, which lists URLs of spots by categories that include airports (at least in the US), swamps, beaches, dams, geysers, parks, and so on. Then there's Waypoint.org, and even one I just found called SwopNet Waypoints, which has lists of waypoint resources by country and certainly looks of interest.

 

But I also don't see the harm in virtuals. Then again, I usually sign a log and don't generally trade items except for the occasional whim.

Link to comment

For me, part of the problem with virtuals is that it is impossible to tell when a virtual is no longer being maintained. The marker still there and people are sending verification e-mails to someone who quit geocaching a year ago. Someone else might be interested in adopting the spot and perhaps adding to the spot by placing a cache, but the very nature of a virtual makes this unlikely.

 

That's why I see the "can you place a micro or a traditional there" and "is it interesting" tests as being necessary.

Link to comment

Until recently I thought that micro's hidden in the woods were the worst evil. I have now been to a cache that is even more evil. A 4 stage multi-stage cache with each stage being smaller than a micro because it is only the last part of the coordinates to the final. I know the final stage is a ammo can and I like ammo cans. Ammo cans are easy to find.

 

Please note I'm not saying that these types of caches should not be allowed. I'm just saying its evil. All I can think about is getting back to it and finding the ammo can. In the ammo can awaits the log book. The log book needs my name....

Link to comment
The articles in Today's Cacher contain the opinion of the writers and are not meant to be a policy guide for geocaching.com.

Your absolutely correct.

 

Also not all articles published represent the opinon of the magazize either. We try very hard to be unbiased as to what we publish. Our goal is to provide information and entertainment.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

I just realized another reason why virtuals bug me. They're backwards.

 

With a regular cache, a person can talk up the location all they want to on the cache page. They can give history, details, photos, whatever. They can show you in advance how cool the cache site is.

 

With virtuals, because of the whole "tell me what you found here" philosophy, the approach is backwards. If I know I'm going to go by famous spot X and I know what town it's in (but not the actual co-ordinates yet), I can usually find that cache to add to my watchlist UNLESS it's a virtual. If it's a virtual, all the things I'm looking for are deliberately kept off the listing, which is the one thing that's supposed to entice me enough to make the journey.

 

There's virtuals out there for amazing sites. But you would never know it from reading their listings because they can't tell you. And as a result, you're likely to miss something really nice that you would have seen if it was regular cache listing.

 

I'm sorry, but that just seems backwards and pointless to me. If you want a site whose purpose is to point people to great locations, instead of finding caches, build one that doesn't count finds or needs verifications. Those features are perfect for this site but they tend to get in the way when your only goal is siteseeing.

Link to comment
Microcaches - The Death of Creative Geocaching

I found this sub-title/statement to be rather lame. I've been finding WAY more creative micros than full sized caches. Maybe the author of that article lives in an area where there aren't enough examples of good micros. I have no idea. In general, I found that I just couldn't relate to the author's experience with micros at all. I think a mix of all types of caches is just perfect. :D

 

--Marky

Link to comment

Bons, for some reason I get the distinct impression you don't like virtuals. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. I enjoy all types of caches, with micros being lowest on the list. I happen to also enjoy virtuals. Some people like apple pie, some like cherry... and some don't like pie at all!! I just feel there is a definite place for virtuals in this hobby. They make EXCELLENT caches for someone who has a disability, but would like to partake, as most virtuals are readily accessible, unlike micros and traditionals. Again, this is one cachers opinion. Don't bury me for it!! :D

Link to comment

I think it's obvious that we all have our opinons on virtuals and micros. It has been hashed out many times here in the forums. Hashng it out again isn't going to change anyones mind.

 

Geocaching is made up of many different facets, all we need to learn how to do, is to realize that. Let's not start an argument here on what we think is good or bad. Everyone has their favorite, being virtuals, micros or traditional.

 

We are all in this for what we personally find satisfying. I believe that no matter what part people find fun, if it makes them happy, then we should be happy for them.

 

We all share the same passion in one way or another. So let's respect each other, whether their views agree with yours or not. :D

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
If all the great spots are taken why blame a newbie if they want to place a cache in the best of what's left? Why punish them for their original idea that you have seen before? Placing a lame cache takes more work than finding a lame cache.

 

TBTB were not forced to make any decision whatsoever. Forced is a strong term. It's like someone had a gun to their head. They chose. They chose to limit virtuals and they chose to allow "lame" traditionals. I support the latter decision. I don't support the former.

 

I also do not agree that only the good ones get through or that only the bad ones are not approved. It's subjective decision each and every time. Something approvers should not have to deal with. The only thing they should be asking is if the answer is something that can't be found on the internet with an easy search. But then approvers are not TBTB they work for them. They might have a stronger power of suggestion but they can be 'fired' for whatever that means for not following the company line.

What he said..........................and said SOOOOO well!

Link to comment
Bons, for some reason I get the distinct impression you don't like virtuals.

Like any other type of cache, I love a good virtual and tolerate the lame ones. The same applies to just about anything else in geocaching. I prefer a traditional regular sized cache, but that's just a preference.

 

The very nature of virtuals create a couple of problems. I tried to explain those problems in my posts, not because "I don't like virtuals" but because "I see virtuals as having some problems that need to be dealt with".

Link to comment
I defend often in these forums virtuals. However if all parks start leaning the way the Dino's park does better to dump them entirly than lose what I like most about this RASH.

You're right. That's why I'm hesitant to go the virtual route. If a bunch of virtuals start popping up in these parks, the land managers are going to figure the policy is fine and we'll never get traditional caches there.

 

Ecoscavenger isn't quite what I was looking for. Interesting, though.

 

localhikes.com appears to be more what I want. I'll have to look into it more and maybe post the first one in Michigan.

Link to comment

Well stated, El Diablo! I don't think anyone here is going to change anyone else's mind. I know this thing has been beat to death before, and didn't intend to start another long thread rehashing all of that. It was the two articles that were in Today's Cacher online mag that caused me to do it. I had no control :lol: And Bons, I guess I misinterpreted your posts; sounded to me like you have no use for virtuals; obviously I was mistaken :P So sorry about that! Anyway, thanks to all for the posts, and keep on cachin' - regardless of your preferences! Oh, and BTW, I really enjoy benchmarking,too - hadn't mentioned that yet!

Edited by catcher24
Link to comment

Hi,

 

I would venture to say that there are great caches and lame caches and everything in between.

 

The type of cache does not guarantee what the quality of the cache will be, but log entries will generally tell the tale.

 

You can have fun with micros and virtuals and ammo cans and multis and puzzles and letterboxes and webcams and events and locationless...you can also find rotten examples of each type.

 

Blanket statements are a lot like blankets, they may give you a feeling of security, but they don't help you look for/find/log/enjoy a geocache.

 

nfa

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...