Virtual Hides

[+Team Paubon]

We love virtuals, both as owners and as finders. We have learned so much and seen so much historical stuff we never would have known about. The last few I have tried to submit have been denied.

 

I get stories from "We are no longer approving virtuals" to "Many people don't like them" to "Geocaching is really NOT a virtual game but real caches" and "We are opening up a special forum just for virtuals"....so which is it?

 

I for one would LOVE for virtuals to, again, be approved. Did I miss the announcement of new approvals or special forum?

 

Bonnie

[+Hemlock]

Virtuals are still being approved. They just have to be extraordinary. As a matter of fact I think I approved one last month.

[+Team Paubon]

Thanks Hemlock, but is this a Northern California thing only? We did some wonderful No. Ca ones in May but can't seem to get our So Cal ones approved at all.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Thanks Hemlock, but is this a Northern California thing only? We did some wonderful No. Ca ones in May but can't seem to get our So Cal ones approved at all.

It's true...this site is about geocaching. What is it about these "special places" that makes you think you can't hide a container there?

 

Geocaching.com is about finding a container and signing the enclosed logbook.

If I wanted a tourbook of historical sites, I'd go to AAA.

[+Hemlock]

Like I said, they have to be extraordinary. Roughly nine out of ten virtuals submitted are not extraordinary. The guidelines for virtual caches were significantly revised in early 2003. Most of the virtual caches that were approved before that time would not meet the current guidelines.

 

Allow me to quote the illustrious Jeremy Irish.

If you really want to enter the murky realm of virtual caches, ask first and post second. Consider that your virtual cache will most likely not get listed. That way you are prepared for disappointment.

AND

Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it. If you must create a virtual cache its best to bring the idea up before doing the research. Expect a no first and a yes in extraordinary situations. I hate it has to be blunt but that's the fact, Jack.

[+LordSaw]

Thanks Hemlock, but is this a Northern California thing only? We did some wonderful No. Ca ones in May but can't seem to get our So Cal ones approved at all.

It's true...this site is about geocaching. What is it about these "special places" that makes you think you can't hide a container there?

 

Geocaching.com is about finding a container and signing the enclosed logbook.

If I wanted a tourbook of historical sites, I'd go to AAA.

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it's just one grain of sand on the beach. Others happen to think that a log only micro or an ammo can with a bunch of cheap swag, hidden ten/a hundred feet from a hike/bike path in an urban park just like the one ten blocks away to be just useless as you do a virtual. Some of the Virtual Caches I have done have been much harder to claim a find on than the some of the Traditional ones. Finding the needed information was a lot more difficult, than finding the cache.

 

Yeah I am fairly new, but it was the Virtuals that got me into this, not the idea of chasing down someone else's junk in an ammo can. Now I like all of them, especially if they take me somewhere new and interesting. You cache your way and I'll cache mine and we'll both enjoy the hunt/find.

 

And BTW, I don't care if TPTB remove Virtuals from the Finds, I don't even care if they just drop the Find count altogether. It don't mean a thing, I just want the caches to be interesting and lead to interesting places. And I've used AAA and they don't cover a third of the great places where the Virtuals have taken me.

 

Cache Well.

[+bamageek]

Geocaching.com is about finding a container and signing the enclosed logbook.

If I wanted a tourbook of historical sites, I'd go to AAA.

I have to strongly dissagree with this statement. To me, geocaching is a lot more than looking for a piece of tupperware. There are many aspects of geocaching and finding a container is only part of it.

 

My family and I have been geocaching for almost a year now. In that time we have traveled to countless numbers of places, seen many fantastic sites, and learned a LOT of history along the way.

 

While my 2 year old enjoys finding "treasure", my wife doesn't really care about looking for a container. To her the object of the game is where it takes us and taking time to enjoy the area. Virtuals are every bit as important to the game as traditional caches. The same goes for locationless caches; I don't mean the every day types, but the challenging ones such as the doughboy statues. We have made several weekend trips out of state for the sole purpose of finding a locationless cache such as this.

 

As for virtuals, they are not banned. I was actually able to get one approved myself recently. If there is an area of significance in which you are not able to place a traditional or an offset, such as an NPS site for example, virtuals are still valid options. A well designed virtual can be a little bit of a challenge and not just a quick and easy number.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Geocaching.com is about finding a container and signing the enclosed logbook.

If I wanted a tourbook of historical sites, I'd go to AAA.

I have to strongly dissagree with this statement. To me, geocaching is a lot more than looking for a piece of tupperware. There are many aspects of geocaching and finding a container is only part of it.

 

My family and I have been geocaching for almost a year now. In that time we have traveled to countless numbers of places, seen many fantastic sites, and learned a LOT of history along the way.

 

While my 2 year old enjoys finding "treasure", my wife doesn't really care about looking for a container. To her the object of the game is where it takes us and taking time to enjoy the area. Virtuals are every bit as important to the game as traditional caches. The same goes for locationless caches; I don't mean the every day types, but the challenging ones such as the doughboy statues. We have made several weekend trips out of state for the sole purpose of finding a locationless cache such as this.

 

As for virtuals, they are not banned. I was actually able to get one approved myself recently. If there is an area of significance in which you are not able to place a traditional or an offset, such as an NPS site for example, virtuals are still valid options. A well designed virtual can be a little bit of a challenge and not just a quick and easy number.

There's nothing stealthy about finding a plaque. Plaques are supposed to be found by anyone.

 

Geocaches are only supposed to be found be geocachers. There is some skill involved in retrieving and replacing a container when there may be muggles around. No virtual will ever give you that experience.

[+bamageek]

There's nothing stealthy about finding a plaque. Plaques are supposed to be found by anyone.

 

Geocaches are only supposed to be found be geocachers. There is some skill involved in retrieving and replacing a container when there may be muggles around. No virtual will ever give you that experience.

Sure, theres nothing like the thrill of the hunt. But expand your horizones a bit. How many different ways can you find an ammo can laying beside tree? If this is the only reason for geocaching folks will get real tired real quick. Whats wrong with being given a set of coordinates and a brief story and finding a site that perhaps you have driven by all your life and never known about? I cannot tell you how many places I've been and things I have seen that I would never have seen if it weren't for geocaching.

 

Do you feel the same way about the other types of caches including cam caches, CITO & event caches, and even the new earth caches?

Edited August 19, 2004 by bamageek

[+Renegade Knight]

This site has a vision of what a virtual is and should be insofar as what they will list. The geocaching community also has ideas on what a virtual should be. They are not always the same.

 

GC.com sets a high and subjective bar for virtual approvals. For here, this site, in their house, those are the rules. Because it's subjective on what an exceptional virtual is, it's always good advice to email your approver first and ask.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

There's nothing stealthy about finding a plaque. Plaques are supposed to be found by anyone.

 

Geocaches are only supposed to be found be geocachers. There is some skill involved in retrieving and replacing a container when there may be muggles around. No virtual will ever give you that experience.

Sure, theres nothing like the thrill of the hunt. But expand your horizones a bit. How many different ways can you find an ammo can laying beside tree? If this is the only reason for geocaching folks will get real tired real quick. Whats wrong with being given a set of coordinates and a brief story and finding a site that perhaps you have driven by all your life and never known about? I cannot tell you how many places I've been and things I have seen that I would never have seen if it weren't for geocaching.

I have found plenty of things and places I never would have found had it not been for the 300 or so containers I went looking for.

 

I have found plenty of things I could have found by other means on the 30 or so virtuals I've looked for.

Do you feel the same way about the other types of caches including cam caches, CITO & event caches, and even the new earth caches?

Webcams: some amount of stealth. Muggles likely won't know that those cameras can be controlled or the picture saved. However, I don't have a cell phone so it's real hard for me to do this type. Is it a cache? No. Is it fun? yes.

 

CITO & other events: CITO is helpful to the environment and presents geocachers as "on the good side". All events let you meet other cachers, some offer the chance to find caches with them. Is the event itself a cache? No. Is it fun? yes

 

Earthcache: A geological formation type of virtual. No stealth required to find or log. Fits in the same category as virts.

 

** You may note that I have "finds" in my profile for events and other types I don't consider caches. I would rather have those listed as "visited" or something else, but the site is not currently setup to allow me that option. I prefer traditional caches by far and will continue searching for those above all others.

[Keystone]

Gee, I approved a virtual today. It is in an area that is off-limits to regular caches because it's administered by the NPS, and the cache took the finder to an interesting spot not covered by the tourist guides. The page tells a good story. It met the published guidelines. Like Hemlock said, that happens maybe 5 to 10 percent of the time.

 

But I personally would not hunt for the cache. So I guess because the standards are so "subjective" I really ought to go back and archive it?

[+Renegade Knight]

Gee, I approved a virtual today. ...

But I personally would not hunt for the cache. So I guess because the standards are so "subjective" I really ought to go back and archive it?

Yes subjective. A qualitiave measurement and not a quantitiave. If wow was measured by the inch it would be easy to say 12" inches of wow and you can list that cache!

 

But it's not. It's subjeive. If you, hemlock and every other approver would make the same decsiion (hell I'll spot you 10%) 90% of the time on an identical cache, I'd think you had the workings of an objective and measureable approval. The burial rule seems to be hard enough to nail down and that's meant to be a rock solid measurable rule. It's buried or it's not.

 

Subjective is entirly different from being impartial. So don't go back and disapprove that cache.

[+SoCalAdmin]

If it meets all the guidelines, it will be approved.

 

Yes it's subjective. Of course. What "wow's" one person, doesn't "wow" another. But we allow for that in our decisions. Believe me, it's much easier to approve a virtual cache, than deny it and deal with numerous emails from an angry owner. But the VAST majority of the virtual's submitted, don't even come anywhere close to meeting ANY of the guidelines for them.

 

Read the guidelines. Follow the guidelines. Use the reviewer notes section to explain why it is that in addition to meeting all the guidelines that this deserves to have the special recognition of being a virtual cache. It's pretty simple. It's not easy, but it's simple.

[+Hynr]

I understand what the cache approvers are saying here. But I think something was lost when the "standards" were made more restrictive. There are tons of great virtuals that were placed before then. These are still very popular finds (just look at the logs). I see very few new ones like that these days. That should tell you that the change had a negative impact.

 

By deeming that virtuals need to be off-set caches with a film cannister placed at a nearby lightpost or parkbench, you have degraded the virtual. If the cache owner wants it without the mindless micro, then what is wrong with that?

 

Geocaching is a lot of different things to different folks. Some love the old virtuals and saw no need for the fix that was made in 2003. Many have told you so. I attend geocaching meetings and it frequently comes up. No one seems to defend the decision.

 

There is another compelling reason to go back to the way it was before: the virtual allowed cachers to meet on-line. Nothing replaced that. There is a forum thread somewhere about hard-core geocachers getting bored with things here. In that thread you will find that there are some who say that this sport is about people communicating. The organization should foster that, rather then inhibit it. The only reason I know anything about Ron Streeter is because of his virtuals. If I ever meet him we'll have something to talk about. One of my alll-time favorite caches is his "Out of Africa" virtual cache. By today's standards that would not get approved because one can easily hide a film cannister nearby. But that would take away from the cache as Ron designed it.

 

Jeremy - I have seen a lot of paying clients tell you to bring the old-style less-restrictive virtuals back and to return to the cache owner the artistic freedom to execute them as s/he wishes. Remember that the customer is always right! I don't want to hear any whining about not having enough funds to upgrade the servers if you can overlook hundreds of paying customers.

[+Runaround]

Yep, lots of reasons to go back.....

 

The dead bird on the trail virt - name the species for credit.

The lost tennis shoe on the side of the trail virt - name the brand and size.

The mailbox in front of the house that was torn down virt- what was the address?

The old paint can in the woods left by a litterer virt - what color was the paint?

The old tire in the ditch virt - what is the speed rating?

 

Wow, glad we let all those virts in.

 

Wow!

[dboggny]

seems like the forums has this discussion once a month. its getting old. unfortunately many of us argued in favor of a liberal virtual geocaching approval policy a long time ago and were overcome by a vocal minority and the site operators. it was, ultimately, the site operators choice to make and they made it. they have not always made the best decisions in several areas, but they have made them and that is that. i am sorry your cache wasn't approved. ultimately, you will have to take your virtual cache listing business elsewhere if you want to list it or you could create your own web page (doesn't have to be fancy) and list it there. you could even creat a .loc or .gpx file for people to download from your site and put it into their gps. good luck.

[Keystone]

The feedback that I hear in local forums, at event caches, and on the trails is quite different than what Hynr reports. It is more along the lines of "you're doing a great job with screening out most of the driveby virtuals" and is usually followed by "I wish the site would screen out the driveby micros."

 

As for "subjectivity" I am not sure whether everyone realizes that we discuss virtual caches VERY regularly in the reviewers' forum. For example, we double-check with each other to make sure that something which "WOWS" a reviewer with a special interest in the subject of the virtual will also be of general interest to the average geocacher (represented by other reviewers who may not be big fans of, say, military history or primitive art). Sometimes the consensus is to list the cache -- over the initial misgivings of the reviewer asking the question. Other times, a reviewer can archive the cache with the confidence that nine other reviewers agreed that it didn't meet the guidelines.

[+Harrald]

<<SNIP>>

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it's just one grain of sand on the beach. 

<<SNIP>>

That's not his opinion, it's a fact. It's not one grain of sand. It's the beach.

 

Maybe this post will enlighten you on where this fact came from.

Edited August 19, 2004 by Harrald

[+bamageek]

Yep, lots of reasons to go back.....

 

The dead bird on the trail virt - name the species for credit.

The lost tennis shoe on the side of the trail virt - name the brand and size.

The mailbox in front of the house that was torn down virt- what was the address?

The old paint can in the woods left by a litterer virt - what color was the paint?

The old tire in the ditch virt - what is the speed rating?

 

Wow, glad we let all those virts in.

 

Wow!

There definately has to be some control over the virtuals. A virtual should be something that is worthy of the visit. They should not be designed for easy drive by numbers. I feel that there should be a bit of challenge involved in finding the information and you should be able to learn something along the way. Maybe give the cacher a little "warm and fuzzy" feeling when they find it... I think this is part of the reason that its more difficult to get them approved.

[+kayakanimal]

Yep, lots of reasons to go back.....

 

The dead bird on the trail virt - name the species for credit.

The lost tennis shoe on the side of the trail virt - name the brand and size.

The mailbox in front of the house that was torn down virt- what was the address?

The old paint can in the woods left by a litterer virt - what color was the paint?

The old tire in the ditch virt - what is the speed rating?

 

Wow, glad we let all those virts in.

 

Wow!

The dead bird on the trail virt - name the species for credit.

Shove a micro under it and call it a traditional cache

 

The lost tennis shoe on the side of the trail virt - name the brand and size.

Again...the micro thing

 

The mailbox in front of the house that was torn down virt- what was the address?

Hey...this can be a traditional size huh?

 

The old paint can in the woods left by a litterer virt - what color was the paint?

Ditto

 

The old tire in the ditch virt - what is the speed rating?

A BIG traditional!

 

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Edited August 19, 2004 by kayakanimal

[+kayakanimal]

We love virtuals, both as owners and as finders. We have learned so much and seen so much historical stuff we never would have known about. The last few I have tried to submit have been denied.

 

I get stories from "We are no longer approving virtuals" to "Many people don't like them" to "Geocaching is really NOT a virtual game but real caches" and "We are opening up a special forum just for virtuals"....so which is it?

 

I for one would LOVE for virtuals to, again, be approved. Did I miss the announcement of new approvals or special forum?

 

Bonnie

I agree with that. I also think the guidelines could be relaxed a LITTLE in a place where you CAN'T put a traditional cache...like an airport.

BTW...careful of getting brow beat about opening this can of worms.

[+drfred]

Virtuals, micros, locationless, etc...they should ALL be allowed and even more variants should be added. You "purists" need to get a life. This is a GAME and should be FUN! If people want to come up with variants that are FUN for them and others it should be encouraged.

 

Geocaching is not just a bunch of hippies hiding tupperware containers in the northwest anymore.

 

Relax and enjoy...

[+kayakanimal]

Virtuals, micros, locationless, etc...they should ALL be allowed and even more variants should be added.  You "purists" need to get a life.  This is a GAME and should be FUN!  If people want to come up with variants that are FUN for them and others it should be encouraged.

 

Geocaching is not just a bunch of hippies hiding tupperware containers in the northwest anymore.

 

Relax and enjoy...

CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP

Edited August 19, 2004 by kayakanimal

[+Bull Moose]

Relax and enjoy...

Relax? Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

Besides, hippies can't afford GPSrs, so this never was about NW hippies. (And do I know about NW hippies. In fact, I can smell a few now.)

[+Harrald]

Virtuals, micros, locationless, etc...they should ALL be controled better and variants should be checked on before they are posted. <<INSULT DELETED>> This is a GAME and should be FUN! If people want to keep the game FUN for them and others it should be encouraged.

 

Geocaching is not just a bunch of number hogs hiding caches at every lamp post and street sign.

 

Relax and enjoy...

[+Harrald]

Sorta works both ways, huh chief?

[+Bull Moose]

..

Edited August 19, 2004 by Bull Moose

[Jeremy]

The dead bird on the trail virt - name the species for credit.

Shove a micro under it and call it a traditional cache

 

The lost tennis shoe on the side of the trail virt - name the brand and size.

Again...the micro thing

 

The mailbox in front of the house that was torn down virt- what was the address?

Hey...this can be a traditional size huh?

 

The old paint can in the woods left by a litterer virt - what color was the paint?

Ditto

 

The old tire in the ditch virt - what is the speed rating?

A BIG traditional!

 

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Somehow this doesn't seem to be strengthening your position for virtuals.

[+Prime Suspect]

Virtuals, micros, locationless, etc...they should ALL be allowed and even more variants should be added. You "purists" need to get a life. This is a GAME and should be FUN! If people want to come up with variants that are FUN for them and others it should be encouraged.

 

Geocaching is not just a bunch of hippies hiding tupperware containers in the northwest anymore.

 

Relax and enjoy...

I see by your member date that you weren't around when the rules were much more laissez-faire (or in many cases, non-existent). The number of worthless, junk caches was astounding, and it just about ruined the sport before it ever really got off the ground. The previous comment about the old tennis shoe in the woods wasn't an exaggeration. There were more than a few of those submitted, and worse.

[+LordSaw]

<<SNIP>>

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but it's just one grain of sand on the beach. 

<<SNIP>>

That's not his opinion, it's a fact. It's not one grain of sand. It's the beach.

 

Maybe this post will enlighten you on where this fact came from.

Yeah, I've been pointed to that post in every thread that concerns this subject.

And about the beach, his opinion is only one, yours is only one, as is mine. It's just the big Rock in the middle of the beach that matters, TPTB and as you have pointed out with the link, the big rock rules.

 

Cache Well

 

edited typos

Edited August 20, 2004 by LordSaw

[+Team GPSaxophone]

We love virtuals, both as owners and as finders.  We have learned so much and seen so much historical stuff we never would have known about. The last few I have tried to submit have been denied. 

 

I get stories from "We are no longer approving virtuals" to "Many people don't like them" to "Geocaching is really NOT a virtual game but real caches" and "We are opening up a special forum just for virtuals"....so which is it? 

 

I for one would LOVE for virtuals to, again, be approved. Did I miss the announcement of new approvals or special forum? 

 

Bonnie

I agree with that. I also think the guidelines could be relaxed a LITTLE in a place where you CAN'T put a traditional cache...like an airport.

BTW...careful of getting brow beat about opening this can of worms.

All that security...WOW, what a rotten place for any type of cache

[+kayakanimal]

The dead bird on the trail virt - name the species for credit.

Shove a micro under it and call it a traditional cache

 

The lost tennis shoe on the side of the trail virt - name the brand and size.

Again...the micro thing

 

The mailbox in front of the house that was torn down virt- what was the address?

Hey...this can be a traditional size huh?

 

The old paint can in the woods left by a litterer virt - what color was the paint?

Ditto

 

The old tire in the ditch virt - what is the speed rating?

A BIG traditional!

 

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Somehow this doesn't seem to be strengthening your position for virtuals.

My position for virtuals:

 

MOST are fun. Just like MOST traditionals are fun. Do/should you not approve a traditional cache because it doesn't have a WOW factor? If someone makes a virtual that is inappropriate the cache should be archived (or not approved in the first place). NO difference than a traditional cache.

 

Just wondering Jeremy...

Do you have these stats:

1. How many Traditional caches exist?

2. How many virtuals exist?

3. How many of each have been logged for some given time frame?

 

It seems that if you get this kind of response about cachers wanting virts...maybe you should rethink them. If some cachers don't like them they have the option of NOT doing them.

 

Hey...they were a good idea at one point. Why not now?

[+kayakanimal]

Yep, lots of reasons to go back.....

 

The dead bird on the trail virt - name the species for credit.

The lost tennis shoe on the side of the trail virt - name the brand and size.

The mailbox in front of the house that was torn down virt- what was the address?

The old paint can in the woods left by a litterer virt - what color was the paint?

The old tire in the ditch virt - what is the speed rating?

 

Wow, glad we let all those virts in.

 

Wow!

I have seen these talked about before...does anyone have the links to these caches?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Hey...they were a good idea at one point. Why not now?

I've read several times in the forums how some land managers have banned physical caches merely because virtuals are an alternative

[+kayakanimal]

Hey...they were a good idea at one point. Why not now?

I've read several times in the forums how some land managers have banned physical caches merely because virtuals are an alternative

Is that the ONLY reason or maybe:

Some people place caches in inappropriate places?

 

Maybe we should not approve traditional caches any more!?!?!

OK...OK...Sorry...it is hard to type with my "dry wit"

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Hey...they were a good idea at one point. Why not now?

I've read several times in the forums how some land managers have banned physical caches merely because virtuals are an alternative

Is that the ONLY reason or maybe:

Some people place caches in inappropriate places?

 

Maybe we should not approve traditional caches any more!?!?!

OK...OK...Sorry...it is hard to type with my "dry wit"

So rather than help defend the basis of this activity, you want to give those land managers more virtuals to throw in our faces?

 

I see, let's stop geocaching altogether because of a few poorly placed caches

[+kayakanimal]

Hey...they were a good idea at one point. Why not now?

I've read several times in the forums how some land managers have banned physical caches merely because virtuals are an alternative

Is that the ONLY reason or maybe:

Some people place caches in inappropriate places?

 

Maybe we should not approve traditional caches any more!?!?!

OK...OK...Sorry...it is hard to type with my "dry wit"

So rather than help defend the basis of this activity, you want to give those land managers more virtuals to throw in our faces?

 

I see, let's stop geocaching altogether because of a few poorly placed caches

That was what I was thinking...almost...

 

I see, let's stop allowing virutals because of a few poorly placed caches!?!?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I see, let's stop allowing virutals because of a few poorly placed caches!?!?

Boy did you miss the point.

 

Let's stop virts because land managers are pointing to those and saying, "You can still play your game here without placing a container."

[+kayakanimal]

I see, let's stop allowing virutals because of a few poorly placed caches!?!? 

Boy did you miss the point.

 

Let's stop virts because land managers are pointing to those and saying, "You can still play your game here without placing a container."

I DO understand your point.

1. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. It was just some good natured ribbing.

2. I don't think the correct concept of the types of caches because of "those" (you didn't say how may) few land owners.

3. If some land owners would only accept micros...should we stop them also?

 

(2 and 3 are serious answers and questions)

[bluegauges]

I personally am more interested in the locationless caches. I am rather new to the whole hobby but I have learned about many things from rock circles in England, to lost drive-ins across the country, to large rock letters on the sides of mountains, to the challenge of finding a point that can be logged that has 5 of the same number in its coordinates. Many of these can be very difficult and challenging. A big plus is that alot of them can be done simultaneously by people all around the world or across the country whereas a traditional or virtual requires you to be within the general vicinity. Some of the virtuals can be pretty lame unless they have some kind of work involved. Such as solving a puzzle, searching for clues from provided hints etc. This gives a sense of accomplishment that a traditional cache seems to lack. I did a traditional yesterday that took a grand total of 3 minutes from the time I parked the car. On the other hand, I have been trying to find a locationless one by doing the research online for 2 days. (I think I have a drive-in nearby and also a quintuplets that I can log). The rock circles one had me very interested but as I am in NY, it isn't possible.

 

I hate when some people try to influence others as to what they can or cannot do. When somebody tells you to filter out certain things because they dont like them, I dont agree. If they dont like it, they dont have to do it. Don't force your opinions on others. Just like if they dont like whats on a particular TV channel, they should just change the channel.

 

I still think they should be approved to keep out the incredibly stupid cases but not banned altogether.

[+kayakanimal]

I personally am more interested in the locationless caches. I am rather new to the whole hobby but I have learned about many things from rock circles in England, to lost drive-ins across the country, to large rock letters on the sides of mountains, to the challenge of finding a point that can be logged that has 5 of the same number in its coordinates. Many of these can be very difficult and challenging. A big plus is that alot of them can be done simultaneously by people all around the world or across the country whereas a traditional or virtual requires you to be within the general vicinity. Some of the virtuals can be pretty lame unless they have some kind of work involved. Such as solving a puzzle, searching for clues from provided hints etc. This gives a sense of accomplishment that a traditional cache seems to lack. I did a traditional yesterday that took a grand total of 3 minutes from the time I parked the car. On the other hand, I have been trying to find a locationless one by doing the research online for 2 days. (I think I have a drive-in nearby and also a quintuplets that I can log). The rock circles one had me very interested but as I am in NY, it isn't possible.

 

I hate when some people try to influence others as to what they can or cannot do. When somebody tells you to filter out certain things because they dont like them, I dont agree. If they dont like it, they dont have to do it. Don't force your opinions on others. Just like if they dont like whats on a particular TV channel, they should just change the channel.

 

I still think they should be approved to keep out the incredibly stupid cases but not banned altogether.

You may be young (in cache numbers) but you are wise my son.

 

I like the locationless caches also. I kind of agree with you about the lame virts. Most I have done have some type of history lessons with them I LOVE THOSE!

I have also done MANY physical caches that took me LESS then 3 minutes to find.

 

I hate when some people try to influence others as to what they can or cannot do. When somebody tells you to filter out certain things because they don't like them, I don't agree. If they don't like it, they don't have to do it. Don't force your opinions on others.

The reason I said they could filter them out is so the don't have to do them if they don't want to...so I think we agree on this.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I see, let's stop allowing virutals because of a few poorly placed caches!?!? 

Boy did you miss the point.

 

Let's stop virts because land managers are pointing to those and saying, "You can still play your game here without placing a container."

I DO understand your point.

1. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. It was just some good natured ribbing.

2. I don't think the correct concept of the types of caches because of "those" (you didn't say how may) few land owners.

3. If some land owners would only accept micros...should we stop them also?

 

(2 and 3 are serious answers and questions)

I think you need to re-write #2. It doesn't make any sense the way it's written.

 

As for size, we should all push for the right size cache for the location. Micros should not be hidden where an ammo box can easily go. Too small of a container for the surroundings only leads to trampling the terrain looking for that needle in a haystack.

[+kayakanimal]

I see, let's stop allowing virutals because of a few poorly placed caches!?!? 

Boy did you miss the point.

 

Let's stop virts because land managers are pointing to those and saying, "You can still play your game here without placing a container."

I DO understand your point.

1. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. It was just some good natured ribbing.

2. I don't think the correct concept of the types of caches because of "those" (you didn't say how may) few land owners.

3. If some land owners would only accept micros...should we stop them also?

 

(2 and 3 are serious answers and questions)

I think you need to re-write #2. It doesn't make any sense the way it's written.

 

As for size, we should all push for the right size cache for the location. Micros should not be hidden where an ammo box can easily go. Too small of a container for the surroundings only leads to trampling the terrain looking for that needle in a haystack.

You are correct. Trying to write this while playing with my 15 month old. Sorry.

 

2. (redone) I don't think we should change the concept of how caches work because of a few landowners. Better?

 

I think you are helping me make one of my main points for me better than I can.

As for size, we should all push for the right size cache for the location.

I think there are MANY place a virt is perfect. Such as at an airport. Just like micros have NO place in the woods.

 

Just remember...

Mature adults can agree to disagree.

Kayakanimal

[+Mopar]

2. (redone) I don't think we should change the concept of how caches work because of a few landowners. Better? 

 

Well.... if by "few" you mean the states of New York, Georgia, Nebraska, California, and many other states, as well as the Federal Govt (to name a few of those pesky land managers saying they only want virtuals) then I guess you are right.

 

And if you are against changing the concept of caching to appease land managers, then you should want virtual caches banned, since they changed the basic concept of geocaching to make a few land managers happy in the first place.

Edited August 20, 2004 by Mopar

[+Team GPSaxophone]

2. (redone) I don't think we should change the concept of how caches work because of a few landowners.

We don't need to help them ban caching

 

I think you are helping me make one of my main points for me better than I can.

As for size, we should all push for the right size cache for the location.

I think there are MANY place a virt is perfect. Such as at an airport. Just like micros have NO place in the woods.

To quote Jeremy: Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessability of caching in areas that discourage it.

I have only found a few places that could not support a micro, although a micro could be placed in the immediate vicinity.

 

Virts have nothing to do with size. They are a different game entirely.

With a cache, you have to find it, retrieve it, log it, and replace it without letting Muggles know what you've been doing.

With a virt, you just have to look like a tourist and take pictures of historical markers or interesting objects.

Edited August 20, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

[+Renegade Knight]

Virtuals are fine. New cache types should come along as fast as we can invent them. Some will be winners, some losers.

 

The goal should be to have as many viable cache types for as many geochers as possible. That broadens the hobby. It keeps it healthy.

 

An argument that a virtual cache isn't a cache is as pointless and arguing that benchmarks are not an enjoyable activity for some cachers. An argument that parks in general are leaning towards only allowing virtuals which endangers the goal of a healthy hobby with a lot of different cache types has merit if it has truth behind it.

 

My direct experiece has been parks that don't like physical caches, don't like virtuals either. However that's one state and only part of that state.

[+kayakanimal]

2. (redone) I don't think we should change the concept of how caches work because of a few landowners.

We don't need to help them ban caching

 

I think you are helping me make one of my main points for me better than I can.

As for size, we should all push for the right size cache for the location.

I think there are MANY place a virt is perfect. Such as at an airport. Just like micros have NO place in the woods.

To quote Jeremy: Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessability of caching in areas that discourage it.

I have only found a few places that could not support a micro, although a micro could be placed in the immediate vicinity.

 

Virts have nothing to do with size. They are a different game entirely.

With a cache, you have to find it, retrieve it, log it, and replace it without letting Muggles know what you've been doing.

With a virt, you just have to look like a tourist and take pictures of historical markers or interesting objects.

Virts have nothing to do with size. They are a different game entirely.

With a cache, you have to find it, retrieve it, log it, and replace it without letting Muggles know what you've been doing.

With a virt, you just have to look like a tourist and take pictures of historical markers or interesting objects.

I agree.

[+Renegade Knight]

....]Virts have nothing to do with size. They are a different game entirely.

With a cache, you have to find it, retrieve it, log it, and replace it without letting Muggles know what you've been doing.

With a virt, you just have to look like a tourist and take pictures of historical markers or interesting objects. [/i]

I agree.

That's about like saying that physical caches are all lame crappy urban micros. There is variety out there. There is more to traditional caches than "walk 27 feet through an uninspiring waste of landscape, find the frigging box, sign the stupid log, and move on to #21 for the day.

[+kayakanimal]

Sorry..it's getting late, I'm getting tired.

I agree to a point.

 

I think someone could point out bad things about ANY type of cache.

But I can also point out good things about ALL types.

 

See ya'll in the morning.

 

Kayakanimal