+Team GPSaxophone Posted June 16, 2004 Author Posted June 16, 2004 (edited) part II has been posted here. Let's continue the discussion about virtuals being worthy in this thread. One of my points from the original post that was not addressed is why aren't virtuals cross-posted somewhere else? If you really want someone to find this interesting place/sign/monument/whatever, wouldn't you want a larger audience viewing the listings? This site has been "against" virtuals for some time now. People still submit them, but few are actually approved. Rather than waste the time and energy it took to set up the virtual, why not post your description on a site like waypoint.org? Edited June 16, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone
+blazerfan Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 I don't think there is a need to prove a virtual worthy... Geocaching.com has a virtual cache type that is all the worthyness required. Geocaching is largly a game without rules... just guidelines... you can play the game however you like. Personally about 9% of my finds are virtual or locationless, and that is how I choose to play.
+mtn-man Posted June 16, 2004 Posted June 16, 2004 I think this topic needs to be closed again. You have opened a topic as a Part II to this discussion. If this topic is going to be left open then I am going to merge them together. We don't need two topics running discussing the same issue.
+Team GPSaxophone Posted June 16, 2004 Author Posted June 16, 2004 I think this topic needs to be closed again. You have opened a topic as a Part II to this discussion. If this topic is going to be left open then I am going to merge them together. We don't need two topics running discussing the same issue. This topic is about virtuals being worthy of being listed here. The other topic is about coexisting with physical caches. Oh well...I'll close this one again.
Recommended Posts