Jump to content

What Is It About Virtuals


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I am constantly amused by some of the comments I read in defense of Virtuals. Some people try to "prove them worthy", others just want something to hunt. What I don't get is why these people don't go to waypoint.org and share these virtuals with everyone over there?

 

Before you say, "I want a smilie for the Virtual I found," keep in mind that your smilies are only contained within your own profile. If you really want Virtual smilies, edit your profile to show how many Virtuals you've found. The smilies on this website aren't compiled for you to compare your stats with everone else's.

 

Now that stats are out of the way, what is it about Virtuals that make you thiunk they should even be listed on Geocaching.com?

 

A cache, BTW, is a store of items. As defined on this website, it is a container with at least a logbook placed for others to find. Chances are, you won't find one based on clues alone, that would be letterboxing. Geocaching is the use of GPS technology to place and locate containers that ideally shouldn't be found by someone without a GPS.

 

Once you get within several feet of a geocache, you might still have to hunt for it. Once you get within so many feet of a "historical marker" or other Virtual "cache", it's pretty obvious where it is.

 

The objects used to create Virtual "caches" are located where the general public can easily find them. They are intended to be found without the use of special technology. Completely different from the idea behind geocaching. That's where waypoint.org comes in. That site is designed to allow users to submit coordinates of known objects.

Link to comment

My first hide for lack of a better term was a Virtual. Since I have had one micro and a regular and do not plan on any further caches for which can't have at least a log book. Most of the fun for me and my kids is trying to locate the blasted cache. We do not even include Virtuals anylonger in our queries.

Link to comment

I like virtuals and locationless caches, but I think they should be separated into their own section like benchmarking is.

 

There are too many hard feelings on this subject and it will NEVER go away. The best solution is to give them their own area, ORrrrrr let someone ADOPT them ALL to another site to save the bandwidth or whatever excuse is in use this week. I could care less. I'm sick of the whole debate.

 

Sn :blink::huh: gans

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment
Once you get within several feet of a geocache, you might still have to hunt for it. Once you get within so many feet of a "historical marker" or other Virtual "cache", it's pretty obvious where it is.

 

The objects used to create Virtual "caches" are located where the general public can easily find them. They are intended to be found without the use of special technology.

 

Not in all cases. I'm not a big fan of virts, but this was one of the best "cache hunts" I've ever been on. It had everything you want in a cache hunt, except the logook at the end. And the object was not an easy find, even when we were standing within 30 feet of it, because of the dense growth surrounding it.

Link to comment
Um, Sax, there are 21 virtuals logged in your account.

Yep. Delete 'em. Show everyone that you MEAN business. :blink:

Like I said before, it's not about the numbers. You'll notice that fewer than 10% of my finds are Virtuals and Locationless combined. I also haven't found either type in some time.

 

I keep them in my stats in the hopes that one day they won't count towards my total (like benchmarks). Virtuals are nothing more than decorative benchmarks anyway.

Link to comment
I keep them in my stats in the hopes that one day they won't count towards my total (like benchmarks). Virtuals are nothing more than decorative benchmarks anyway.

Sounds like we are on the same page.

 

That said, some of my favorite hunts have been BMs, and virts. :blink:

Link to comment

I've had to resort to doing a few virtuals--mostly in Key West, which doesn't really have traditional caches. Although I've found a few good things, it's hard to take them as seriously as a traditional cache. The virtuals I've done feel a little like cheating, because they've been impossibly easy to find... one building I visited here in Miami can be seen from miles away, and has no requirements. Compare that to spending hours poking around for a micro.

 

All in all, I think virtuals shouldn't be done away with, but should be kept in a separate section.

Link to comment

Your arguments are highly unsound.

 

A cache, BTW, is a store of items. As defined on this website, it is a container with at least a logbook placed for others to find.

 

Yes, and "virtual" means existing in essence but not in actual fact. Therefore, as long as it is a virtual cache, then there is no requirement of a store of items or a logbook.

 

Chances are, you won't find one based on clues alone, that would be letterboxing.

 

Or a very crafty geocache. There have been quite a few geocaches on this site (most praised as being extremely difficult or impressive) that start with the sentence "the listed coordinates are *not* where the cache is!".

 

Geocaching is the use of GPS technology to place and locate containers that ideally shouldn't be found by someone without a GPS.

 

Really? Waldenrun will be crushed. Ideally, I don't think it matters the method you have for your find. It simply *started* from GPS technology.

 

Once you get within so many feet of a "historical marker" or other Virtual "cache", it's pretty obvious where it is.

 

Really? I think others have already commented on this fallacy. I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the same argument in the benchmark forum without being laughed out the door. Not every virtual is a 10 foot tall statue (and none of the future ones will be if the "historical marker, statue, etc" uniqueness is applied stricter and stricter)...

 

The objects used to create Virtual "caches" are located where the general public can easily find them. They are intended to be found without the use of special technology. Completely different from the idea behind geocaching.

 

This is not a requirement of virtuals and not a requirement for geocaching either. With over 40 urban finds, I can tell you that some traditional geocaches are placed directly in the public's eye (and often go missing because of it)...meanwhile some virtuals are seemingly in the middle of nowhere, because history happened where it happened and society has abandoned it where it stood to develop somewhere else.

 

That's where waypoint.org comes in. That site is designed to allow users to submit coordinates of known objects.

 

Along this same line of reasoning, why post your traditionals at geocaching.com? That's where navicache.com comes in. That site is designed to allow users to submit coordinates of hidden caches.

 

Now, not only will I take this time to objectively critique your argument, I'll provide my own. First, there are areas of this country that are problematic for hiding a traditional cache. In some areas, this may mean travelling dozens of miles just to reach your next closest find. Virtuals take the place in these regions to allow everyone to have more fun with their closest available wildlands. In the future, as we bring the benefits and low cost to even these currently restricted areas, the virtuals can be considered placeholders for future traditional caches. Beyond that, this game will quickly become tired and redundant if a little spice and variety isn't shown by the hiders (and occasionally the finders). Removing virtuals for any one of the reasons above would set a precedent for removing webcams and even certain mystery caches.

 

Just as the world doesn't revolve around the wishes of those of us who would like to see a wider range of virtuals approved, it also does not revolve around the wishes of those who would like to delete virtuals from this website. In fact, if it had to revolve around one or the other, I'd suggest it would be far more compromising and tolerant to revolve around the former wishes with the latter group able to ignore those caches they don't wish to seek. There is nothing inherently wrong with virtuals or their being listed on this website. They are an established part of this version of the RASH/game and their removal would truly be a poor decision.

Link to comment
Your arguments are highly unsound.

<snip>

You're the one pointing out the rare exceptions to each rule. Those exceptions do not negate the validity of my points.

Sure, it is possible to go geocaching without a GPS (Waldenrun), but not widely done.

Yes, some caches require the solving of a puzzle to find, but in the end are still found by using GPS coordinates. Some caches are given away by the hint on the webpage, but even most of these still need the GPS to get you to the area.

Navicache is a duplicate of Geocaching.com (for all intents and purposes), Waypoint.org is not.

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment
Lets get real. What is is about a box that makes it so it's the only thing we can have fun seeking out? Not a dadgum thing.

It is possible to combine activities that you enjoy. I happen to like taking my 4x4 to find caches. I also like riding my mountain bike to find caches. I might also like finding historical markers on my way to geocaches.

 

The topic isn't about what you like to do when you go out. It's what makes a Virtual fit on this site instead of putting those listings somewhere else.

Link to comment
Lets get real.  What is is about a box that makes it so it's the only thing we can have fun seeking out?  Not a dadgum thing.

It is possible to combine activities that you enjoy. I happen to like taking my 4x4 to find caches. I also like riding my mountain bike to find caches. I might also like finding historical markers on my way to geocaches.

 

The topic isn't about what you like to do when you go out. It's what makes a Virtual fit on this site instead of putting those listings somewhere else.

Part of geocaching is about getting out and seeing what there is to see. Virtuals fit that.

 

Part of geoaching is about how to respond to not being able to find a box (because the NPS banned them). Virtuals fit that.

 

Part of geoaching is about fun. Virtuals fit that as much as a lame urban micro does.

 

Part of geoaching is using your GPS. Virtuals fit that.

 

Part of geocaching ls the "Log" and telling your adventure. Virtuals fit that.

 

Part of geoaching is about the numbers, yours, others, your next find, etc. Virtuals fit that.

 

Part of geoaching is about finding something hidden, or at least not so obviouse. Virtuals do fit that even if what you seek isn't a box.

 

Virtuals are accepted as caches, just as are webcams, multi caches and the like. That acceptace is all they need. Waypoint.org isn't virtual caching. Geocaching.com is. You tell me what the difference is and then you have answered your own question.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Lets get real.  What is is about a box that makes it so it's the only thing we can have fun seeking out?  Not a dadgum thing.

It is possible to combine activities that you enjoy. I happen to like taking my 4x4 to find caches. I also like riding my mountain bike to find caches. I might also like finding historical markers on my way to geocaches.

 

The topic isn't about what you like to do when you go out. It's what makes a Virtual fit on this site instead of putting those listings somewhere else.

Part of geocaching is about getting out and seeing what there is to see. Virtuals fit that.

 

Part of geoaching is about how to respond to not being able to find a box (because the NPS banned them). Virtuals fit that.

 

Part of geoaching is about fun. Virtuals fit that as much as a lame urban micro does.

 

Part of geoaching is using your GPS. Virtuals fit that.

 

Part of geocaching ls the "Log" and telling your adventure. Virtuals fit that.

 

Part of geoaching is about the numbers, yours, others, your next find, etc. Virtuals fit that.

 

Part of geoaching is about finding something hidden, or at least not so obviouse. Virtuals do fit that even if what you seek isn't a box.

 

Virtuals are accepted just as are webcams, mulit caches and the like. That acceptace is all they need. Waypoint.org isn't virtual cacheing. Geocaching.com is. You tell me what the differnece is and then you have answered your own question.

Thank you, RK. That's exactly the type of answer I was looking for.

Link to comment
What I don't get is why these people don't go to waypoint.org and share these virtuals with everyone over there?

I can think of several reasons. Waypoint.org is not nearly as user friendly as GC.com - it is more cumbersome to search for nearby entries, for example. The short descriptions on Waypoint.org are a poor substitute for the usually much more detailed cache descriptions on GC.com. GC.com keeps track of all my finds, as far as I can tell Waypoint.org lacks this capability. Finally, though I'm not sure about this, I'm guessing that many more potential visitors would see a GC.com listing than would see the same place listed on Waypoint.org.

 

I'm not opposed to virtual caches. In fact some of the ones that I've visited have been pretty cool. I agree with those that have suggested that virtuals be in a different category than physical caches, like benchmarks already are.

Link to comment

Virtuals are not thrilling to me and generally I won't go too far out of my way to seek out one, but having been on the Kaaterskill climb with Briansnat, I'll defend them. They serve my purpose two ways: first, in places like the Catskills where placement of caches is pretty much banned outright, virtuals are appropriate. Secondly, when I travel, they are a way of "leaving my mark" like this one and can be pretty interesting, if properly done.

 

However, I wouldn't want to see virtuals everywhere, at every historical marker, statue or "cool" view. I think GC.com is doing well to limit their proliferation, without banning them outright.

Link to comment
However, I wouldn't want to see virtuals everywhere, at every historical marker, statue or "cool" view. I think GC.com is doing well to limit their proliferation, without banning them outright.

 

I think Metaphor has it right. The virtual thing was getting out of hand and people were waypointing every roadside marker and plaque in existence, no matter how mundane and of course there were the flagpoles, manhole covers, fence posts and the famed sneaker in the woods (tell me the brand) and rotting animal carcass that were submitted as virtuals (the latter two were thankfully rejected). There were too many times when I'd arrive at the "cache", see the item and my reaction was "Yeah, so what? "You brought me here for this?". As a reaction to this problem, GC.COM implemented the "Wow Factor" and I think that's a good criterion.

 

As the owner of a seven virtuals, I archived one that didn't have much of a "Wow Factor" (outside major history buffs). I left another sort of lame one listed because its in a National Wildlife Refuge and I'm leaving it there to protest their recent ban. The remainder I think do have the "Wow Factor", or at least the "Hmmm, That's Odd Factor".

Link to comment

I'm mixed about virtuals, but generally like them. They do have their place, just not EVERY PLACE. Currently, I have several virtuals I own, none of which I would put a traditional cache at for individually obvious reasons. One is a fallen officer memorial in front of the headquarters building I work. Another is for a roadside memorial erected for an officer killed on a traffic stop in 1995. The responses alone are reason enough to keep them around, and my Wyoming virtual causes people to look a little more closely at the rich history of the site itself. One of the most difficult virtuals I've found was Fort Phil Kearney. I went searching for it in the middle of July, and the spring grass had grown to more than 2' in the area, and I was looking for something smaller in diameter than a benchmark. It took 3 of us a solid 20 minutes to find it, and the history of the entire site was amazing. Plus, they have actors all over working various aspects of the fort, in a re-enactment to show what life was like over 100 years ago when we were still fighting the indians. The war re-enactments are also pretty spectacular, but unfortunately I missed that by a day.

 

While I don't see the point in waypointing say...every highway sign along Route66, I would be game for seeing a few of them, at some of the more interesting areas.

Link to comment

Virtuals and locationless caches give more variety to the game. If they ever allow locationless caches again on GC.COM I have about 1/2 a dozen I want to add.

 

I like virtuals because I have learned something from everyone I have ever visited. They also give me something to do that doesn't involve hunting in the woods - I like the variety.

 

I like locationless because it gives me and my family something to look for as we travel about. It has helped turn boring drives into hunts and that makes for a better trip for all of us.

 

Zack

Link to comment

Hmmmm....I guess there hasn't been too much going on around here lately, so let's stir the pot again, eh? :huh:

 

I personally don't like multi-caches, so I just don't do them. Do I publicly rally against them? No. Do I try to get them banned, and say they aren't "real" caches? No. I simply don't seek them out. Just because I don't like to do them doesn't mean they should be disallowed for the rest of the cachers on here.

 

There is plenty of room for ALL types of caches here on GC.com. Don't let the variety die out...

Link to comment
So since events aren't containers with log books inside does that mean next year's campout won't be listed on this site for people to log?

Event caches can have a log book! Here in the Uk, we recently held a event cache with the Forestry Commission Wales (part of the UK Government), as they have just started to give permission to place caches on their land. A cacher from Scotland (Evilroster) kindly donated one of her unique sig items, a hand bound leather note book. All geocachers, and muggles who tried out our introduction cache signed the log book. At the end of the event I presented it to Rhod Watt from FC Wales, with a request that he use it to help promote Geocaching to other FC areas

 

3983b539-91c1-4cfe-b67e-fbc4347b5243.jpg

 

The picture shows Rhod Watt holding the log book, and Kim Burnham from the Gwydr Uchaf area office.

 

Dave

Edited by Mancunian Pyrocacher
Link to comment
So since events aren't containers with logbooks inside does that mean next year's campout won't be listed on this site for people to log?

If you feel that way, then why did you sign the event logbook? :huh:

In cased you missed it, I'm not the one complaining about virtuals.

 

It's just that if you think things that aren't in containers shouldn't be listed on this site then it seems strange to me that you listed an event and plan to list another one next year. They're not caches either. They're just another way that geocachers can have a good time doing something related to their hobby (much like benchmarking, virtuals, and locationless).

 

Personally, I like the fact that this site has found other ways to keep me entertained between caches.

Edited by bons
Link to comment
So since events aren't containers with logbooks inside does that mean next year's campout won't be listed on this site for people to log?

If you feel that way, then why did you sign the event logbook? :huh:

In cased you missed it, I'm not the one complaining about virtuals.

 

It's just that is you think things that aren't in containers shouldn't be listed on this site then it seems strange to me that you listed an event and plan to list another one next year. They're not caches either. They're just another way that geocachers can have a good time doing something related to their hobby (much like benchmarking, virtuals, and locationless).

 

Personally, I like the fact that this site has found other ways to keep me entertained between caches.

What of the places which physical caches can't be placed? For example, Yosemite National Park.

 

I think it is great people can share a particular point of interest with the geocaching community via the gc.com website. I like the fact that a Virtual Cache Owner gives a "mission" to find certain pieces of information. Personally, I am more inclined to visit this point of interest if I am asked "find out what date was this historic building was built to log a find" rather than "go look at the historic building, its cool."

 

It brings a competitve edge out in people, which for some is the only way they are going to be able to enjoy such locations this world has to offer. In other words, I agree with you bons.

Edited by Nappy10
Link to comment

Well, I saw this get bumped up by Team 360, and I thought I'd add my kindling to the fire.

 

Of my 784 finds, I've found only 16 virtuals (about 2%). I've tried virtuals in California, Florida, Minnesota and Georgia.

 

In most cases, I found them disappointing, and decided to not pursue them anymore. I'm willing to try some more in other states, just to see what they're like, and see if they take me to someplace interesting in another state.

 

But for the most part, it's really not something that I care to pursue any longer.

 

The neat thing is - I get to exercise my will on the whole thing.

 

It's like the argument about television programming or radio shows. I have the ultimate power to decide whether I want to watch a channel or listen to a show or do a virtual.

 

I'd be disappointed if virtuals disappeared just as much as I'd be disappointed if locationless caches went away completely. And I would also be upset if Howard Stern went away, or if Barney the Dinosaur went away. Well, maybe not Barney, but definately Howard...

 

Virtuals are like "Bubba the Love Sponge" - you either like 'em, or dislike 'em. In either case, you get the choice of whether to consume or not.

Link to comment

Well said nappy. One thing that I enjoy about geocaching is being able to get out and find things in our area (not just the cache itself) I have discovered parks, beautiful sites or just some interesting things while out Geocaching. It seems to me that virtuals can have the same effect. Now I have only found one virt, but II try to screen them or I will find one if its on the way to another cache.

 

Now I just moved to dallas, and I'm about to get my own GPS (I borrowed a friends before) Now I love airplanes and airports. One Virt I am planning to do (if its not done already) is to do one at the DFW airport observation area. This is a wonderful area to go watch the planes at the airport and is fully open to the public for free. My daughter loves it. Now I cant do a traditional cache or even a micro for obvious reasons. But this is a perfect example of where Virts have their place and should be counted along with traditionals. This is a way of seeing something new and wonderful, and most people wouldnt know about it.

 

Why is it there is always someone trying to stir up garbage with slamming argumentative posts etc? Guess some just like controversy and being rude and argumentative than letting others enjoy the hobby peacefully. :huh: oh well.............

Link to comment

everyone is entitled to their view, and there is lots of room within the guidelines for all, which is one of the things i like best about this rash. i personally would rather be led to a really pretty place or a historical site than to be led to yet another film cannister micro in a parking lot. i'll search for about any cache, as it is the hunt more so than what is at the end that i find enjoyable. if you don't like a certain type of cache the solution is just don't go after it. -harry

Link to comment

Sax, if your transfer to CO ever becomes complete just try some of my virtuals and see if they are all that easy. I have two that I doubt you could even do in one day and still get up and go to work the next day.

 

Its the find of the coordinates and meeting the requirements to lay claim to a cache found, NOT a box and a log book.

 

Does it have to be tangible instead of intagible to satisfy your bloated ego and stats.

Link to comment

Said it before, so I'll say it again.

 

Geocaching, at it's core, is finding someTHING, someWHERE. Virts, LC's, webcams events, traditionals and other types ALL fit within that framework.

 

Sometimes the comments on virts, LC's and micros (even events and webcams to an extent) border on and cross over the line to outright snobbery. That IMHO has no place in this pastime. There are even comment in the benchmark section about 'drive by' benchmarks and if the are worthy to log. They ARE benchmarks. Like em or not they are there and THIS site has nothing to do with their designation as such.

 

Lighten up Francis.

Link to comment
Um, Sax, there are 21 virtuals logged in your account.

Yep. Delete 'em. Show everyone that you MEAN business. :huh:

Like I said before, it's not about the numbers. You'll notice that fewer than 10% of my finds are Virtuals and Locationless combined. I also haven't found either type in some time.

 

I keep them in my stats in the hopes that one day they won't count towards my total (like benchmarks). Virtuals are nothing more than decorative benchmarks anyway.

They won't count towards my total?

 

I didn't know this was a contest to find the most. Geocachers get involved for lots of different reasons. Don't waste your time worrying about why others do it, or what kinds of finds they enjoy.

Link to comment
What Is It About Virtuals, that makes you think they're caches?

Because they are fun and I enjoy them. I don't enjoy all types of caches but guess what, I don't run whining to the forums over them. I just enjoy what I enjoy and let others enjoy what they enjoy.

 

It's a simple concept but, for some, it's too complex I guess.

Don't take it personal. Try to be objective in your reasons. Renegade Knight and Corp of Discovery have managed to give actual reasons why Virtuals are worth hunting.

 

Several of you seem to be under the impression that I'm against Virtuals. That's not the case. Don't get so uptight when someone asks a simple question. Geez

Link to comment

:huh: Just adding my 2 cents worh as someone new to geocaching. A frined of mine locally in Salt Lake turned me onto the idea of caching. Due to $$$, unable to do it for a while. I did get started by doing aprox. 30 virtural's before I got a GPS. I have gotten aprox. 70 traditional/micros in the last month with a GPS. I will still do virtuals becuase the ones I seem to find are ones with something to do with the history of the founding of Utah, and the historical information many small towns have that is forgotten or just not taught

 

I have thought of many places that might make a nice virtual find, but think better that maybe it does not have the "WOW" factor, enough to really make someone think about what happened here, and how it may have affected the local peoples in years gone by.

 

My thoughts is leave them, and if you (anyone) has a problem with them, don't look for them. I feel that way with some micors, that the intense hunt is taking away my fun, so I don't do many. There are prople who LOVE micros, and more power to them.

 

Again, being new, maybe I have missed something about the find count. I do mine after work, because I don't have a family life right now, and this is something that makes my off work time enjoyable. I like learning about the history in the area, as well as trying to match whits with those who spent the time finding some of these hiding places. I found a virtual site over the Memorial Weekend in a small centeral Utah town that I never knew existed, and my family is from that part of the state. To learn the history of why this town even existed made the extra miles out of the way worth it.

 

So, after putting in a Dime's worth of my two cents... please take it from a newbee, if you don't like them, don't look for them. Let those of us who do, still have access to the history others have located and are willing to share. Be sides, who are we competing against???? I do this for fun adn relaxation, not to compete with the guys who got me started. I have more time than they do to look.. as they are lucky to have a family life.

Link to comment
Don't take it personal.

 

Several of you seem to be under the impression that I'm against Virtuals. That's not the case. Don't get so uptight when someone asks a simple question. Geez

It's hard not to take it personally when the person on the other end of the discussion starts with "your opinions amuse me". Don't start with a personal attack and you might find a more receptive audience.

 

If you are not against virtuals, then what purpose is there in attempting to prove that they are not legitimate caches? Why claim that the hunt for them is not "geocaching" by your definition and as such they should be deleted from this site (and subsequently sent to waypoint.org)?

 

If you're no better than a troll, the least you can do is type in green instead.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
A good use of virtuals I've seen a few times: When a regular cache is vandalized, emptied, or temporarily removed, transform it into a virtual cache until it can be restored.

That is not allowed.

 

If you want to change it to a virtual then you need to archive the traditional and then resubmit the cache as a virtual for approval. Once a cache is approved you cannot change the cache type. Cachers have abused the system in the past and have had a cache approved as a traditional and then immediately changed it to a virtual so they could skirt the guidelines. Also, there are many cachers who absolutely do not want to seek virtual caches. The do not like it when people change caches from traditional to virtuals because it shows they have found a virtual on their profile page.

Link to comment
Once a cache is approved you cannot change the cache type. Cachers have abused the system in the past and have had a cache approved as a traditional and then immediately changed it to a virtual so they could skirt the guidelines. Also, there are many cachers who absolutely do not want to seek virtual caches. The do not like it when people change caches from traditional to virtuals because it shows they have found a virtual on their profile page.

They still change it to a virtual but since they can't change it officially they'll just mention that it's currently a virtual in their cache description.

Link to comment
Once a cache is approved you cannot change the cache type.  Cachers have abused the system in the past and have had a cache approved as a traditional and then immediately changed it to a virtual so they could skirt the guidelines.  Also, there are many cachers who absolutely do not want to seek virtual caches.  The do not like it when people change caches from traditional to virtuals because it shows they have found a virtual on their profile page.

They still change it to a virtual but since they can't change it officially they'll just mention that it's currently a virtual in their cache description.

Yep, you are correct. If it is reported it will be archived though.

Link to comment
Hmmmm....I guess there hasn't been too much going on around here lately, so let's stir the pot again, eh?  :lol:

 

I personally don't like multi-caches, so I just don't do them. Do I publicly rally against them? No. Do I try to get them banned, and say they aren't "real" caches? No. I simply don't seek them out. Just because I don't like to do them doesn't mean they should be disallowed for the rest of the cachers on here.

 

There is plenty of room for ALL types of caches here on GC.com. Don't let the variety die out...

 

I agree with the naked woman on the beach. If you don't want to find them, well, don't.

 

-Jif

Edited by TeamJiffy
Link to comment

That is not allowed.

 

If you want to change it to a virtual then you need to archive the traditional and then resubmit the cache as a virtual for approval. Once a cache is approved you cannot change the cache type. Cachers have abused the system in the past and have had a cache approved as a traditional and then immediately changed it to a virtual so they could skirt the guidelines. Also, there are many cachers who absolutely do not want to seek virtual caches. The do not like it when people change caches from traditional to virtuals because it shows they have found a virtual on their profile page.

:lol:

 

Well, you learn something new every day.

Link to comment
I am constantly amused by some of the comments I read in defense of Virtuals. Some people try to "prove them worthy", others just want something to hunt. What I don't get is why these people don't go to waypoint.org and share these virtuals with everyone over there?

What I don't get is why people who don't like virtuals and locationless caches keep lobbing for their removal rather than, as is OFTEN suggested, simply don't go look for them. Maybe that should be the subject of a future topic: "Why don't geocachers who don't like virtuals simply ignore them and leave the rest of us alone?"

 

Why do they bother you when so many people constantly say they enjoy them? Is it because of the smiles? You don't want people to have the additional finds in categories that you no longer search for? (I haven't pickup up from the several postings I've read of yours that stats matter to you.)

 

Before you say, "I want a smilie for the Virtual I found," keep in mind that your smilies are only contained within your own profile. If you really want Virtual smilies, edit your profile to show how many Virtuals you've found. The smilies on this website aren't compiled for you to compare your stats with everone else's.

 

This paragraph doesn't make sense to me. Smiles are not contained within our profiles they are included in the total find count attached to each log entry. That is important to a substantial majority of geocachers.

 

Our profiles already do identify the number of virtuals we have found. Why would we need to make another entry. Are you trying to attach shame or guilt to our virtual finds?

 

The smiles on this website are compiled for us to compare our stats with anyone else's if we want to. I don't hesitate to estimate that a substantial majority of geocachers DO compare their stats to those of many others.

 

Stats and the uses they are put to are not evil. Most of us think they are part of the fun.

 

Now that stats are out of the way, what is it about Virtuals that make you thiunk they should even be listed on Geocaching.com?

 

Our caching always involves travel and virtuals are nice to add to the mix. We have learned a lot about towns and the countyside over the past 2.5 years. Information we never got by racing up I-5 just to get to our destination 700 miles north. At least half of what we have learned has come from our virtual finds that only comprise about 12% of our road trip finds.

 

With the tighter virtual rules these finds will be slightly different - less history but more "wow". But they will still be fun to look for.

 

Locationless (reverse virtual) caches are very helpful to those of us living in cache poor rural areas. We have about 30 local caches and 20 of them are ours. During the weeks and sometimes months between outside trips we have been able to add about 40 additional local cache hunts because of this category.

 

In summarization I guess I would just have to repeat a tired old phrase around here: If you don't like 'em, don't do 'em. Virtuals are very popular and people enjoy them. Why should we constantly have to defend them?

 

I am reminded of a geocacher who visited the Eureka, California area from Oregon (and I only add his location so that if he should read this he will know it is about him – though I've never seen a forum post by him). He stayed the weekend and found 8 virtual caches and 1 regular. For every one of his posts on the virtual cache pages he claimed he strongly disliked virtuals. Interesting choice for searches when there were plenty of easy regular caches for him to find. Can you spell s h m u c k?

Link to comment
Don't take it personal.

 

Several of you seem to be under the impression that I'm against Virtuals. That's not the case. Don't get so uptight when someone asks a simple question. Geez

It's hard not to take it personally when the person on the other end of the discussion starts with "your opinions amuse me". Don't start with a personal attack and you might find a more receptive audience.

 

If you are not against virtuals, then what purpose is there in attempting to prove that they are not legitimate caches? Why claim that the hunt for them is not "geocaching" by your definition and as such they should be deleted from this site (and subsequently sent to waypoint.org)?

 

If you're no better than a troll, the least you can do is type in green instead.

If you wouldn't jump to conclusions and just stick to the topic, I would have ended this thread after Renegade Knight's comments. Don't assume that I'm out to kill Virtuals. You're reading into this too much.

 

Stay Tuned for Part 2. Closing this thread since I got the answers I needed

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...