Jump to content

What Is It About Virtuals, Part II


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

My bike cost $79 at Kmart. It weighs about 35 pounds. Some people would say that it is a piece of junk, “Well my bike only weighs 23 lbs., has Shimano shifters, straight forks, steel frame, blah blah blah”

 

Big deal. I like to ride my bike around the neighborhood, visiting the parks and geocaches in my community. My $79 bike gets me there. I also like to ride my bike in the mountains. After all, that’s why I bought a mountain bike. I don’t care who made the parts for it, I just know that it has gears for 18 speeds and stops when I apply the brakes. I enjoy riding my bike down a mountain just as much as the guy with a $1000 bike. The funny thing is, we can both ride down the mountain together.

 

On the same trail. ;)

 

There isn’t a special trail for “cheap” bikes. The two kinds coexist quite peacefully. I’m not in the other guy’s way, and he’s not in mine. If one of us wants to go faster, the other will let him pass.

 

In part one of this topic, Renegade Knight did a good job summing up the reasons why virtuals are worthy of being listed. However, the place for them to be listed is not in place of geocaches, but rather alongside them. Geocaches can be placed within inches of a benchmark, but not within .1 miles of a virtual. Why is this? If someone is hunting for a plaque, they aren't going to mistakenly sign their name in a logbook. Likewise, if someone is hunting for a container, they aren't going to mistakenly email the container's owner with the third word on the second line of the plaque as proof of visit.

 

The way the site works now, I could host an event, place a physical cache, and log a benchmark all at the same coordinates. What difference does it make if there is a virtual at the same spot?

 

The time has come to separate virtals from the geocache listings and give them their own place to grow. What will it take for Geocaching.com to move these virtuals to the proper place on the site?

Link to comment

I agree 100%. Personally I like the Virtual Caches, because even though I drove truck for 16 years and have been in all of the lower 48, I still like to learn something about the history of the places that I visit. I even learn things about my hometown of 15 years. As they say, you're never to old to learn.

Link to comment

In most cases I agree. If you are looking for a container you won't accident'y find a virtual. You might find a traditional if you are looking for a virtual but you can chalk that up to serendipity like finding the last part of a multi while looking for the first part.

 

Every now and then there will arise a situation where a virtual should block a traditional from being placed. I don't expect this would come up all that often. An example though is my Clay Caves II virtual cache. It replaced Clay Caves which was a traditonal and which incured the wrath of the local cave group who (off the record) promisted to steal er.. remove the cache themselves if it wasn't removed by the owner. When the cache owner called it quits I placed the virtual.

 

Edit: Vitural Wars I and Virtual Wars II, Heck Sax I like your style. It reminds me of somone...

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

The time has come to separate virtals from the geocache listings and give them their own place to grow. What will it take for Geocaching.com to move these virtuals to the proper place on the site?

I thought you wanted them all to go away to waypoint.org??? ;)

 

Are you saying you actually WANT them listed here on GC.com now?

 

Am I reading this right? What happened, the planets lined up or something?

Link to comment

The time has come to separate virtals from the geocache listings and give them their own place to grow. What will it take for Geocaching.com to move these virtuals to the proper place on the site?

I thought you wanted them all to go away to waypoint.org??? ;)

 

Are you saying you actually WANT them listed here on GC.com now?

 

Am I reading this right? What happened, the planets lined up or something?

You (and many others) incorrectly assumed that it was I wanted. I made no such claim. Go back and reread the other thread, I've reopened it to allow people to comment now that "the whole story" is out in the open.

Link to comment

Sax says:

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?

 

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.

 

360:

Hey if you are saying something different than what I get outta that, great! No need to be dismissive and tell me to "go back and read the thread", we all know how ya feel about Virts.

Link to comment
Sax says:

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?

 

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.

 

360:

Hey if you are saying something different than what I get outta that, great! No need to be dismissive and tell me to "go back and read the thread", we all know how ya feel about Virts.

Taken out of the context of the whole message, I can see where you would get that idea.

 

Part one of this thread asked if Virtuals were worthy of being hunted for or even listed on this site, as opposed to being listed solely on a site such as waypoint.org.

 

The conclusion reached on part one (largely Renegade Knight and Corp of Discovery) was that virtuals are just as worthy as geocaches and should be listed here.

 

My personal feelings are that virtuals should co-exist with geocaches the same way that benchmarks do. Part two of this topic is basically asking if everyone else agrees.

Link to comment
My personal feelings are that virtuals should co-exist with geocaches the same way that benchmarks do. Part two of this topic is basically asking if everyone else agrees.

Like I asked, did the planets line up or something? Judgement Day is here?

I can't believe what I just read....wow....

Link to comment
My personal feelings are that virtuals should co-exist with geocaches the same way that benchmarks do. Part two of this topic is basically asking if everyone else agrees.

Like I asked, did the planets line up or something? Judgement Day is here?

I can't believe what I just read....wow....

I've actually posted that before. Several times. Go back and look at some of my older posts, you're sure to find it ;)

Link to comment

<b>

Part one of this thread asked if Virtuals were worthy of being hunted for or even listed on this site, as opposed to being listed solely on a site such as waypoint.org.

 

The conclusion reached on part one (largely Renegade Knight and Corp of Discovery) was that virtuals are just as worthy as geocaches and should be listed here.

 

My personal feelings are that virtuals should co-exist with geocaches the same way that benchmarks do. Part two of this topic is basically asking if everyone else agrees. </b>

 

<script> Some places NEED to be seen, but due to State or Fed. rules, no regular cache may apply. The place I am thinking of is Johnson Woods, north of Orville, Ohio. It is the largest standing section of 3-400 year - old trees in the State.</script> <small>Now, I don't do virtuals much, myself, but I hope SOMEBODY over there does one.</small> Hey, I'm experimenting with the HTML thing. ;)

Link to comment
Some places NEED to be seen, but due to State or Fed. rules, no regular cache may apply. The place I am thinking of is Johnson Woods, north of Orville, Ohio. It is the largest standing section of 3-400 year - old trees in the State.

Now, I don't do virtuals much, myself, but I hope SOMEBODY over there does one. Hey, I'm experimenting with the HTML thing. ;)

That's part of the reason for this topic. There are places where we can not place physical caches, so virtuals are allowed. Some people don't want to stop there. They know of places where physical caches could be placed, but don't want to "cheapen" the site by drawing people to a container instead. It's places like this where both types could be placed, but can't under the current rules.

Link to comment
The time has come to separate virtals from the geocache listings and give them their own place to grow. What will it take for Geocaching.com to move these virtuals to the proper place on the site?

Patience and time.

I've been here 2 years and have heard that story over and over.

Well, the guidelines for virtual caches only changed 18 months ago. To me, that is not a long time ago. I do understand that people's perceptions are different though. To me, the site is still in it's infancy and has a lot of growing to do. Your questions are part of that growing cycle.

 

I have read that virtual caches are banned on this site and that is simply not true. They are not as easy to list as traditional caches but all cache types have guidelines and certain difficulties associated with them.

 

Remember that a lot is going on behind the scenes as well. The conversion to .net to me has been very cool and has given us enhancements that have helped us all. Some unforeseen things caused delays as they were implemented and fixed and new things to add to the site's functionality have popped up along the way.

 

A very interesting topic was started regarding possible changes to the virtual cache guidelines and unfortunately it was derailed as great progress was being made. Hydee and I both suggest that people give positive constructive suggestions and some were given. Modification of the existing guidelines may be a more important topic than when are we going to split them off.

 

Relating to them getting their own section of the web site, well, none of us can make that decision or speculate. That is totally a decision for one person. If he chooses to comment on that then that is his choice.

 

This is a semi-short answer since I am at work. More to come.

Link to comment
A very interesting topic was started regarding possible changes to the virtual cache guidelines and unfortunately it was derailed as great progress was being made.  Hydee and I both suggest that people give positive constructive suggestions and some were given.  Modification of the existing guidelines may be a more important topic than when are we going to split them off.

If the 0.1 mile rule didn't apply between geocaches and virtuals, there would be much less grumbling about denied virtuals

Relating to them getting their own section of the web site, well, none of us can make that decision or speculate.  That is totally a decision for one person.  If he chooses to comment on that then that is his choice.

How about it, Jeremy? Any word on implementing this? I know you don't like to give out the information in case it doesn't happen within the proposed timeline, but its been awhile since the last update.

This is a semi-short answer since I am at work.  More to come.

I've got plenty of time for this, I'm at work ;)

Link to comment
Relating to them getting their own section of the web site, well, none of us can make that decision or speculate.  That is totally a decision for one person.  If he chooses to comment on that then that is his choice.

How about it, Jeremy? Any word on implementing this? I know you don't like to give out the information in case it doesn't happen within the proposed timeline, but its been awhile since the last update.

I don't think we will see any specific timelines. Remember locationless caches? My bet is it will be just before they get addressed. ;)

Link to comment

I've actually come to like virtuals, provided they are of quality (like other cache types). They don't get muggled and are always maintained reasonably well.

 

That said, there is a Park in San Francisco that has a fairly lame virtual in it (the k-leave me cache) that could probably support a more creative physical hide. Since the virtual can't get muggled, the park is blocked forever (relatively speaking). That stinks.

 

Something else to consider is that not all of our newbie geocachers are always following the program as well as we might expect them to. Put a virtual 50 feet away from a physical and you could very possibly have some confused people. A seperate 'virtual space', like benchmarks, would be necessary to keep things straight.

 

I guess I've talked myself into that. Virtuals are still worth doing though, and I'm not sure that "You don't need a GPS to do them" is an evenly applicable argument. They should stay on the site and should count.

Link to comment
My personal feelings are that virtuals should co-exist with geocaches the same way that benchmarks do. Part two of this topic is basically asking if everyone else agrees.

Like I asked, did the planets line up or something? Judgement Day is here?

I can't believe what I just read....wow....

I've actually posted that before. Several times. Go back and look at some of my older posts, you're sure to find it ;)

What? Again, "go read"????

 

You know I can't read....

Link to comment

some people just like to grumble and argue for the sake of arguing. Apparently sax seems like one of those types as they argue and debate and switch views for the sake of aruing more. (yes I knwo you'll balst me sax but oh well it is clear much fo the intent especially the way you switched views about virts)

Link to comment

Shades of doubt creeping in? Am I loosing my resolve to defend virtuals?

 

Some good points are being made. It would appear from reading these pages that virtuals must be a problem in small urban parks with the 528' rule. Living where I do I'm not in a good position to pass judgment on that problem.

 

Hopefully a solution might be, as some suggested here, to eliminate the setback rule for virtuals. Maybe virtuals need a one or two year lifetime limit. But ultimately for me it would be hard to consider a virtual or locationless cache as anything other than a geocache.

 

My time available to go out and find caches is limited so I don't think I need a "new" game to play alongside geocaching.

 

I hunt locationless caches and benchmarks because there are NO new caches in my home area. I had fun with them but am winding down my activity in both of those categories. Locationless because my area has run out of subjects and it is too distracting to my caching partner for me to be constantly scanning and stopping for locationless subjects and after nearly 300 benchmark finds they have become too time consuming.

 

Part (and only part – but an important part) of why I geocache is to watch my find count total grow – to get that little additional reward for the effort. Without virtual caches counting as a "geocache" find my interest would fade very quickly. I doubt that I would go look for any virtuals if they become categorized similar to benchmarks.

 

The time has come to separate virtals from the geocache listings and give them their own place to grow.

 

Grow or die? But if virtuals are assigned a separate category be sure to come back to the forums to watch the sparks fly.

 

If the setback rule were eliminated for virtuals would that solve your problem?

Link to comment
some people just like to grumble and argue for the sake of arguing. Apparently sax seems like one of those types as they argue and debate and switch views for the sake of aruing more. (yes I knwo you'll balst me sax but oh well it is clear much fo the intent especially the way you switched views about virts)

people ARE allowed to change their minds. i like virts because some days i just don't have the energy to do a regular cache. handicapped people also have an easier time doing virts and still have the pleasure of caching. so he changed his mind about virts, no crime there.

Link to comment
some people just like to grumble and argue for the sake of arguing.  Apparently sax seems like one of those types as they argue and debate and switch views for the sake of aruing more.  (yes I knwo you'll balst me sax but oh well it is clear much fo the intent especially the way you switched views about virts)

people ARE allowed to change their minds. i like virts because some days i just don't have the energy to do a regular cache. handicapped people also have an easier time doing virts and still have the pleasure of caching. so he changed his mind about virts, no crime there.

Without starting a war, can we drop the handicapped reason for virts. As a disabled person I find it offensive. I'm planning on doing Warthog Down. Which is a Virt. and trust me if I get there in less than 3 days I will surprise myself and the ones going with me. With the right support team and the right equipment almost ANY cache is handicap accessible. So for the sake of all us old crips lets please drop the "Virtuals for Handicapped" Logic.

Thank you

Link to comment

Let me try an analogy.

 

Back in '84 the football team here won State. Big high. Want to do it again. That successful coach moved on and did it again. Since him, no coach has been good enough. "We" have fine-tuned things, fired coaches, hired coaches, since. The sons of those men have been in High School for a year or two, and more coming. Those old players are hyper critical....and we have fine-tuned ourselves so much that we have won one game in the last two seasons (that's NOT one each). The predictions are for two games at best this next season....What I'm suggesting is some of you guys want to control and fine tune everything - maybe its not so bad like it is. I mean, nothing reaches perfection. Will you do more damage trying to fix your irritations??

Link to comment
...Without starting a war, can we drop the handicapped reason for virts. As a disabled person I find it offensive. I'm planning on doing Warthog Down. Which is a Virt. and trust me if I get there in less than 3 days I will surprise myself and the ones going with me. With the right support team and the right equipment almost ANY cache is handicap accessible. So for the sake of all us old crips lets please drop the "Virtuals for Handicapped" Logic.

Thank you

Since virtuals are easier to rate a 1 and actually mean it. It's a valid argument. Maybe not for you and your team of geo professionals but for those who don't really care to wade through reams and reams of ADA documentation to rate an off trail cache to ensure that every nuance of "1" is valid.

 

As for being offended, that was optional on your part, but your choice none the less. It doesn't really impact the point that was made.

Link to comment
some people just like to grumble and argue for the sake of arguing.  Apparently sax seems like one of those types as they argue and debate and switch views for the sake of aruing more.  (yes I knwo you'll balst me sax but oh well it is clear much fo the intent especially the way you switched views about virts)

people ARE allowed to change their minds. i like virts because some days i just don't have the energy to do a regular cache. handicapped people also have an easier time doing virts and still have the pleasure of caching. so he changed his mind about virts, no crime there.

Without starting a war, can we drop the handicapped reason for virts. As a disabled person I find it offensive. I'm planning on doing Warthog Down. Which is a Virt. and trust me if I get there in less than 3 days I will surprise myself and the ones going with me. With the right support team and the right equipment almost ANY cache is handicap accessible. So for the sake of all us old crips lets please drop the "Virtuals for Handicapped" Logic.

Thank you

by the way. i'm an old crip. i don't find it offensive at all. to each his own. i have done 3 star caches. sometimes all i can do is virts. i cache alone most of the time, so i don't always have a support team. i' glad you do. some of us are just a little luckier than others i guess, and yes, i am angry when i am typing this.

Link to comment
some people just like to grumble and argue for the sake of arguing.  Apparently sax seems like one of those types as they argue and debate and switch views for the sake of aruing more.  (yes I knwo you'll balst me sax but oh well it is clear much fo the intent especially the way you switched views about virts)

people ARE allowed to change their minds. i like virts because some days i just don't have the energy to do a regular cache. handicapped people also have an easier time doing virts and still have the pleasure of caching. so he changed his mind about virts, no crime there.

Without starting a war, can we drop the handicapped reason for virts. As a disabled person I find it offensive. I'm planning on doing Warthog Down. Which is a Virt. and trust me if I get there in less than 3 days I will surprise myself and the ones going with me. With the right support team and the right equipment almost ANY cache is handicap accessible. So for the sake of all us old crips lets please drop the "Virtuals for Handicapped" Logic.

Thank you

by the way. i'm an old crip. i don't find it offensive at all. to each his own. i have done 3 star caches. sometimes all i can do is virts. i cache alone most of the time, so i don't always have a support team. i' glad you do. some of us are just a little luckier than others i guess, and yes, i am angry when i am typing this.

Support team is medical term for Friends and family. Old habits die hard at times.

 

 

 

RK, all I'm saying is that it gets old to allot of people to hear someones handicap used as a reason to justify Virts. There is no justification to use that as a reason. If for no other reason than its too broad. This is a good Virt for handicapped people (well unless your blind because its a visual). This is a great cache for the handicapped(Unless you handicap is being deaf because this cache is an audible set of wind bells to log id the tune.) Handicapped is too broad a term. This cache is WHEELCHAIR accessible. This cache would be great for some one with Limited mobility. Those are good reasons for some Virts to exist. The term Handicapped is simply too broad to us as a reason for virts to exist or not exist.

There are reasons that are Valid. The Handicapped are not a valid reason.

 

thats MY personal 2 cents.

 

(and uper, Im still trying to figure out why you were mad)

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment

i don't always have a "support team"* available. i am mad because i don't find it offensive to use handicapped as a reason. maybe i just took your phrasing of your post wrong. i have an 80 year old mother who can't do anything but virts. that's the only way she can join her children in this hobby. i think handicapped is a good reason to justify virts. it might be old to you, but you have been around here longer than some of us.

 

*"support team" as in family and friends.

Link to comment

In an older thread in the benchmark forums I proposed that it may be good to divide caches into two different section. One for PHYSICAL- traditionals, multi, micro, letterbox (a log book needed to sign, container, permanent) and one for NON PHYSICAL- virtuals, locationless, webcams and events (no logbook, no container, need not be permanent). As I said there, mystery caches may cause a problem, but would most likely fit in with the physical ones better.

 

That would leave us with 4 sections- physical, non-physical, travel bugs and benchmarks. In the other thread I also proposed doing away with the total find count and only listing the totals for each individual type (maybe with section totals), leaving it up to each cacher to use whatever they may want to consider for their own 'total find count'.

Link to comment
i don't always have a "support team"* available. i am mad because i don't find it offensive to use handicapped as a reason. maybe i just took your phrasing of your post wrong. i have an 80 year old mother who can't do anything but virts. that's the only way she can join her children in this hobby. i think handicapped is a good reason to justify virts. it might be old to you, but you have been around here longer than some of us.

 

*"support team" as in family and friends.

Sorry, did not mean to offend in any way. I would like to think you just read it worng.

 

My big thing is the term isn't definable. Classic example. Friend of mind caches in a wheelchair. she can always get to a Virtual cache if the path allows. I walk (well I use the term walk because hobble sounds self deprecating) There are times that she can get to a Virtual that I cant because her distance limits are greater than mine. Other caches like Warthog Down I can get to if I take the time while she could NEVER get there in a chair. We are both handicapped but have different ability's. so saying a cache is handicapped accessible doesn't apply to both of us the same.

 

Virts are cool (well some of them, but I know lame traditional too) I'm not against Virtual caches. I'm just against playing the gimp card as a justification. They don't need to be justified like that.

 

Uper, get to Denver, Ill be your support team.

Link to comment

I have a mountain bike, too, but it's about 20 years old. It needs new shifter cables, and the tires are always flat. What would be a good one to buy to replace it? My wife wants one, also, but she doesn't like the handlebars on most traditional mountain bikes or old fashioned 10-speed bikes either. She doesn't like having to lean forward when she rides, it bothers her shoulders. Any suggestions?

Link to comment
I have a mountain bike, too, but it's about 20 years old. It needs new shifter cables, and the tires are always flat. What would be a good one to buy to replace it? My wife wants one, also, but she doesn't like the handlebars on most traditional mountain bikes or old fashioned 10-speed bikes either. She doesn't like having to lean forward when she rides, it bothers her shoulders. Any suggestions?

70fast.jpg

 

The classics never go out of style

Link to comment
I have a mountain bike, too, but it's about 20 years old.  It needs new shifter cables, and the tires are always flat.  What would be a good one to buy to replace it?  My wife wants one, also, but she doesn't like the handlebars on most traditional mountain bikes or old fashioned 10-speed bikes either.  She doesn't like having to lean forward when she rides, it bothers her shoulders.  Any suggestions?

70fast.jpg

 

The classics never go out of style

That's too weird!!! I had that very same bike as a kid!!!!!!!! ;) Loved the big gear shifter, too....at least until the day I crashed it into the garage door and the force of the impact threw me forward....well....I won't go into any more detail, I think you get the picture! :)

Link to comment
I have a mountain bike, too, but it's about 20 years old.  It needs new shifter cables, and the tires are always flat.  What would be a good one to buy to replace it?  My wife wants one, also, but she doesn't like the handlebars on most traditional mountain bikes or old fashioned 10-speed bikes either.  She doesn't like having to lean forward when she rides, it bothers her shoulders.  Any suggestions?

70fast.jpg

 

The classics never go out of style

That's too weird!!! I had that very same bike as a kid!!!!!!!! ;) Loved the big gear shifter, too....at least until the day I crashed it into the garage door and the force of the impact threw me forward....well....I won't go into any more detail, I think you get the picture! :)

I had the earlier model that was single gear. but the StingRay was THE bike to have.

Link to comment
I have a mountain bike, too, but it's about 20 years old.  It needs new shifter cables, and the tires are always flat.  What would be a good one to buy to replace it?  My wife wants one, also, but she doesn't like the handlebars on most traditional mountain bikes or old fashioned 10-speed bikes either.  She doesn't like having to lean forward when she rides, it bothers her shoulders.  Any suggestions?

70fast.jpg

 

The classics never go out of style

That's too weird!!! I had that very same bike as a kid!!!!!!!! ;) Loved the big gear shifter, too....at least until the day I crashed it into the garage door and the force of the impact threw me forward....well....I won't go into any more detail, I think you get the picture! :)

I had the earlier model that was single gear. but the StingRay was THE bike to have.

Oh, yeah!! And my second bike was a Huffy Buzz-Bike. Remember those? Thick padded banana seat, slung back handle bars, parallel ball-buster rails and a big fat racing slick on the back!

Link to comment
some people just like to grumble and argue for the sake of arguing. Apparently sax seems like one of those types as they argue and debate and switch views for the sake of aruing more. (yes I knwo you'll balst me sax but oh well it is clear much fo the intent especially the way you switched views about virts)

I believe Renegade Knight made some very good points about virtuals in part one. So much that I think virtuals should remain listed on this site. However, I don't think a virtual should prevent anyone from placing a physical cache at the same location (or within 50 feet). Both types can co-exist at the same location. This is the single most controversial point of virtuals- that if they get approved, they prevent a physical cache from being placed within 0.1 miles. If others agree, maybe we can convince TPTB to either lower this distance, or to put virtuals in their own section.

Link to comment
some people just like to grumble and argue for the sake of arguing.  Apparently sax seems like one of those types as they argue and debate and switch views for the sake of aruing more.  (yes I knwo you'll balst me sax but oh well it is clear much fo the intent especially the way you switched views about virts)

I believe Renegade Knight made some very good points about virtuals in part one. So much that I think virtuals should remain listed on this site. However, I don't think a virtual should prevent anyone from placing a physical cache at the same location (or within 50 feet). Both types can co-exist at the same location. This is the single most controversial point of virtuals- that if they get approved, they prevent a physical cache from being placed within 0.1 miles. If others agree, maybe we can convince TPTB to either lower this distance, or to put virtuals in their own section.

Im sorry but the topic in the thread is Bikes. I looked and that is the first topic in this thread. the Virtual stuff seems to be off topic. :unsure:

 

Virtuals exist. they have not gones away. the way they are IS the way they are. Untill we get a new section this is the way its going to be. Instead of fighting a battle you cant win. work the quidelines and do what you can. In other words, CO caching.

Nothing this or anyother site does will please everyone.

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment
This is the single most controversial point of virtuals- that if they get approved, they prevent a physical cache from being placed within 0.1 miles.

 

In whose opinion? Seems to me, from most of the virtual-bashing threads I read, the fact that virtuals aren't really geocaches is the main gripe, not the .1 mile rule.

 

And what the heck does this have to do with bicycles? Are you making a virtual for your buddy Lance, or what?

 

EDIT:Clarificatized the first paragraph for cleanity.

 

EDIT #2: Posted at the same time as Pony Boy. Still, the point stands...what does your discussion of virtuals have to do with the topic of this thread, bicycles?

Edited by Sparky-Watts
Link to comment
You know I can't read....

Wow... and I , it turns out, can't see pictures. Up until today, I thought that the tan thing on your avatar is a sandstone rock formation of sorts...

 

Back on topic, there are only two real issues about virts:

- Jeremy doesn't like them

- they don't bring revenues to Grounspeak

 

The first problem can be partially corrected by promoting elitist and virtually unvisited virtuals (like Warthog Down mentioned earlier in this thread - a great cache, but absolutely not what we cachers normally conjure up when thinking about virts).

 

The second problem may be corrected by mass-listing lame virts under some pay-per-list, pay-per-view schemas. Which is not only a slippery slope for caching as a whole, but also incompatible with the solution #1.

 

So let's just call it intractable, and declare an armistice. I.e. let's ban any references to waypoint.com, and any calls for relaxed virtual guidelines :unsure:

 

edit: typo

Edited by MOCKBA
Link to comment
- Jeremy doesn't like them

- they don't bring revenues to Grounspeak

 

I'm sure I've read somewhere that Jeremy does some mountain biking. And if the Groundspeak store would offer a nice mountain bike with a geocaching logo, GPS mount on the handlebars, and saddlebags for swag and other accesories, they'd bring a lot of revenue into the site.

Link to comment
I've actually come to like virtuals, provided they are of quality (like other cache types).  They don't get muggled and are always maintained reasonably well. 

 

That said, there is a Park in San Francisco that has a fairly lame virtual in it (the k-leave me cache) that could probably support a more creative physical hide.  Since the virtual can't get muggled, the park is blocked forever (relatively speaking).  That stinks.

That is actually not correct.

The cache you mention is a perfect example of why it is not correct.

 

The cache owner placed it at a time when it was OK to do that type of cache. The last time they logged onto the site was February 23, 2004. The last time they found any cache was July 4, 2003. In 3 years they have only found 22 caches and have only hidden 2. The other hidden cache was a traditional multi. It was reported missing on August 10, 2003. He never answered emails and the multi-cache was finally archived on November 2.

 

This brings me once again back to my friend, the guidelines:

Virtual Cache Maintenance Guidelines

 

Although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries and periodically check the location. You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Virtual caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.  The poster will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged “finds” for the virtual cache, and will agree to delete any “find” logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

To me, a virtual cache is a cache. It must be maintained. This cache appears to not be maintained. If you want to place a new physical cache here, then email this user and ask him if he will archive his cache. If he does not reply, then post a "should be archived" note on the cache. If there is no response to admins, then it will be archived.

Link to comment
In an older thread in the benchmark forums I proposed that it may be good to divide caches into two different section. One for PHYSICAL- traditionals, multi, micro, letterbox (a log book needed to sign, container, permanent) and one for NON PHYSICAL- virtuals, locationless, webcams and events.

No! No! No! Non-physical caches ARE geocaches and they NEED to be included in the total find count.

 

In the other thread I also proposed doing away with the total find count and only listing the totals for each individual type

 

Oh No! Not this again! This is not now nor has it ever been necessary. It is inconceivable to me that a majority of cachers would want this or that there is even a substantial non-majority who want the total find count eliminated. Most people are proud of their caching accomplishments and like to see the total numbers posted in their logs and profile pages. I have never met a cacher who has said they would be in favor of eliminating the total find count. ALL my caching acquaintances want the numbers posted. I don't believe the forums are representative of the general caching community.

 

- - -

 

Why can't things be left as they are? Why do non-physical caches bother people other than because of the setback rule?

Link to comment
Why can't things be left as they are? Why do non-physical caches bother people other than because of the setback rule?

 

 

Quite probably, as I suspect with this thread, they don't bother people, but some people like to say they do so that they can stir the pot by opening thread after thread on the subject. :unsure:

Link to comment

"They know of places where physical caches could be placed, but don't want to "cheapen" the site by drawing people to a container instead. It's places like this where both types could be placed, but can't under the current rules."

 

Ummm, I don't get it. You don't want to cheapen a place, but you want to allow a virt and a cache there anyway? If you can put a cache within .1 mile you have to. I see no reason people can't get numbers off a sign for a mutli. They still get to see whatever hitorical thing you think is important enough that it needs to be linked to caching.

Link to comment
In the other thread I also proposed doing away with the total find count and only listing the totals for each individual type

 

Oh No! Not this again! This is not now nor has it ever been necessary. It is inconceivable to me that a majority of cachers would want this or that there is even a substantial non-majority who want the total find count eliminated. Most people are proud of their caching accomplishments and like to see the total numbers posted in their logs and profile pages. I have never met a cacher who has said they would be in favor of eliminating the total find count. ALL my caching acquaintances want the numbers posted. I don't believe the forums are representative of the general caching community.

 

- - -

 

Why can't things be left as they are? Why do non-physical caches bother people other than because of the setback rule?

Really off-topic in this thread, but for what it's worth.....

It wouldn't bother me one bit if the total was removed from my profile, and the count next to my name removed. It barely means anything anyway. Every cacher *I* know plays the game a little different then everyone else. The current total find count is meaningless for comparing one cacher to the next.

 

Cacher A has 1000 "finds", but they are mostly Locationless and virtuals that he logged by searching the internet for the answers and not even leaving his pc.

 

Cacher B has found 500 caches, mostly park-n-grab lightpost caches.

 

Cacher C has found only a handful of caches, but he's recovered 250 benchmarks.

 

Cacher D has 100 finds, but most of them are terrain 5 hydrocaches he kayaked to.

 

Cacher E has 10 finds, but did them all in a wheelchair.

 

Who's the better cacher?

The correct answer is F, all of the above.

Every cacher plays the game and keeps score they way they want. Any total you can come up with here on the site will never fairly compare 1 cacher to the next, so why bother trying?

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...