Jump to content

Virtual Hides


Team Paubon

Recommended Posts

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.

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests in Georgia has now banned everything but virtual caches within the forest.

 

Won't it be fun to be able to hunt nothing but virtual caches within National Forests all across the nation soon? :ph34r:

Link to comment

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.

Great, we agree on something. The basics of each game (simply put, anyway).

 

I'm not saying that virts aren't worthy of having around. It's just that expanding virts on the current site is detrimental to geocaching itself.

 

For the moment, this site is not ready to split virtuals into their own game. It may never get to that point on this site. One solution would be for all of these "virtual supporters" to create their own site. Another would be to get waypoint.org to change format to more closely resemble what you like about this one. As yes, waypont.org already exists as a virtual heaven. However, it isn't designed as user-friendly as geocaching.com.

 

You see, there are plenty of options for people who want to use their GPS to mark objects for others to find. Not all of those options are going to be handled to your satisfaction on this particular site. Get over it.

Link to comment
...Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests in Georgia has now banned everything but virtual caches within the forest.

 

Won't it be fun to be able to hunt nothing but virtual caches within National Forests all across the nation soon? :ph34r:

If we are heading there then I would delete the entire catagory rather than give up traditional caches.

Link to comment
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.

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests in Georgia has now banned everything but virtual caches within the forest.

 

Won't it be fun to be able to hunt nothing but virtual caches within National Forests all across the nation soon? :ph34r:

And the ONLY reason is because virts exist? My guess would be not.

 

But, I do think this is NOT a good thing.

Link to comment
...Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests in Georgia has now banned everything but virtual caches within the forest.

 

Won't it be fun to be able to hunt nothing but virtual caches within National Forests all across the nation soon?  :ph34r:

If we are heading there then I would delete the entire catagory rather than give up traditional caches.

We ARE headed there. The cachers in Nebraska have the same issue. Same with the cachers in NY, where probably 35% of all public land has either banned physicals or requires an impossible to get permit. I am lucky enough to live in a state that seems pretty friendly to caching (the state parks here hide their own letterboxes) but I can still see what's happening in other states and look at the big picture.

Link to comment
Not all of those options are going to be handled to your satisfaction on this particular site. Get over it.

 

I WILL NOT GET OVER IT! I have a voice. I will use it. That is what a forum is for. Just because we don't agree...things do not have to be on the personal side.

Actually, that part of my post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the incessant whiners who post topic after topic complaining that their virt wasn't approved and demand that everyone come to their rescue without doing a dadgum thing about it themselves.

Link to comment
And the ONLY reason is because virts exist? My guess would be not.

No it's not the only reason. But because virtual caches exist, they obviously felt no need to work with the geocachers in Georgia to address their concerns with traditional caches and so they issued a decree with apparently no public input.

 

In their memo they state that geocachers can submit "a land feature such as a unique rock formation or a unusual tree configuration" as a virtual. So with the more stringent guidelines concerning virtual cache placements (which they admittedly are probably not aware of) it amounts to pretty much a ban on geocaches inside the forest. I'm sure that they are also probably not aware of the differing opinions about virtual caches on geocaching.com.

Link to comment
Not all of those options are going to be handled to your satisfaction on this particular site. Get over it.

 

I WILL NOT GET OVER IT! I have a voice. I will use it. That is what a forum is for. Just because we don't agree...things do not have to be on the personal side.

Actually, that part of my post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the incessant whiners who post topic after topic complaining that their virt wasn't approved and demand that everyone come to their rescue without doing a dadgum thing about it themselves.

Ok, Thanks.

 

About these (many) places that don't allow caches...

 

I have not heard about this happening before now. I "assume" that cachers are doing everything they can to remedy this?

 

Tell the truth now...do you REALLY think this would change if virts didn't exist, or no more would be approved?

 

I would like to hear what you think.

Link to comment
About these (many) places that don't allow caches...

 

I have not heard about this happening before now. I "assume" that cachers are doing everything they can to remedy this?

 

Tell the truth now...do you REALLY think this would change if virts didn't exist, or no more would be approved?

 

I would like to hear what you think.

Right now, land managers can point to virts and take the easy way out. If there were no virts, or no more virts, they would have to choose between no caching, limited caching, and unlimited caching.

 

I approached rangers for New Mexico State Parks several months ago. Because I was proactive, I was able to explain caching to them. I didn't have to try and correct mistaken ideas about the RASH. Once I was done, I was able to tell them about virtuals and how they are only "placed" in sensitive areas where a container would not be appropriate.

Link to comment
About these (many) places that don't allow caches...

 

I have not heard about this happening before now. I "assume" that cachers are doing everything they can to remedy this?

 

Tell the truth now...do you REALLY think this would change if virts didn't exist, or no more would be approved?

 

I would like to hear what you think.

Yes.

 

Once we explained to the rangers that they had effectively banned geocaching for all intensive purposes they became open to discuss ways to work to allow traditional caches in our GA National Forest. We had a great initial meeting and they now understand geocaching and geocachers better. We have agreed to a follow up meeting and are working on a way to permit caches. We are still banned in GA for now, but we are in a discussion phase and things look good for us.

 

SoCal Admin's post above is right on the mark.

Link to comment

Add Ohio to the list of places where Groundspeak volunteers and hardworking members of local organizations fight the good fight to explain to land managers why traditional caches should be allowed, after the land managers point at the virtual cache category. It is going well, but when the park ranger says "just place a virtual," it is hard to get the discussion back on track. Traditional caches are banned in all Ohio State Nature Preserves and Wildlife Areas. The policy specifically says "Virtuals only." And the county park policies in at least two Ohio counties are heavily slanted towards encouraging virtuals and discouraging traditionals. Unless, of course, you *want* to perform mandatory maintenance checks of your physical caches every two weeks, with a year-end report to the park district about each item taken and left from the cache, and the names, ages and hometowns of the people who visited.

 

Or how about Michigan? What is the cost of a physical cache permit vs. a virtual cache permit there? Yep, you already knew the answer.

 

kayakanimal, these are cold hard facts from the trenches of dealing with land managers and cache owners every day. What have you observed from your personal discussions with land managers about this issue?

Link to comment
Add Ohio to the list of places where Groundspeak volunteers and hardworking members of local organizations fight the good fight to explain to land managers why traditional caches should be allowed, after the land managers point at the virtual cache category. It is going well, but when the park ranger says "just place a virtual," it is hard to get the discussion back on track. Traditional caches are banned in all Ohio State Nature Preserves and Wildlife Areas. The policy specifically says "Virtuals only." And the county park policies in at least two Ohio counties are heavily slanted towards encouraging virtuals and discouraging traditionals. Unless, of course, you *want* to perform mandatory maintenance checks of your physical caches every two weeks, with a year-end report to the park district about each item taken and left from the cache, and the names, ages and hometowns of the people who visited.

 

Or how about Michigan? What is the cost of a physical cache permit vs. a virtual cache permit there? Yep, you already knew the answer.

 

kayakanimal, these are cold hard facts from the trenches of dealing with land managers and cache owners every day. What have you observed from your personal discussions with land managers about this issue?

I have obtained permission for all of my caches. All the land owners/administrators around here think it is a draw for more people to their parks etc and love it.

 

Example:

Trains! The administrator of the museum thinks it is a great idea to pull in more customers.

 

When I did my Planes! cache I made sure to check with the manager of our small local airport. He is now a cacher! He thought it would have been cool to put it ON the airport property but instead he suggested putting it just outside the fence.

 

In Highlands Hammock state park the Ranger is all for caches such as it's first "Gentlemen, Start Your Engines!"

 

My suggestion is if the rangers have some kind of problem...DOCUMENT EVERYTHING! All meetings etc. Then try your congressman, Senator or whoever is higher up and will listen. Make sure to tell them you are a registered voter when you contact them.

 

Also try sending a letter to the newspaper. They love this kind of stuff! (I use to work for one. Especially small local newspapers). Make sure to tell them how KID FRIENDLY this sport is.

 

Remember...The squeaky wheel gets the grease!

 

Everybody has a boss. Keep going up the ladder until you get a positive response.

 

Will it be easy? NO! Or maybe not. Will it be worth the trouble? That answer is up to you.

Link to comment

If so many players want virtuals and so many land managers insist on virtuals, how does banning virtuals make any sense? Just move the traditionals to areas where they are OK. It's like gambling. Gambling is not allowed in so many communities across the US but there is no way they can ban atlantic city or las vegas. Getting rid of them won't make everybody forget about them.

 

What will happen if they are banned is that somebody else will start a new website for virtuals only and then land owners will still insist on virtuals and then gc.com will lose all of its members and the new site will add traditionals, benchmarks and everything else and since they will have a majority of the players, they will thrive.

Link to comment

KA forgot to mention the two NE Ohio counties that have threatened to issue littering citations to geocachers.

 

Lake County Metroparks in Ohio even voiced concern to NEOGeocachers about a virtual placed in one of their parks. They really didn't want the cache listed but couldn't come up with a way to prevent it. After all, the cache used the trails and interpretive signs that were already in place. What were they going to do, pass a rule making it illegal to possess a GPSr in the parks? We've tried to open a dialog with them but it isn't going anywhere fast. We've even committed to volunteer hours but it hasn't helped.

Link to comment
KA forgot to mention the two NE Ohio counties that have threatened to issue littering citations to geocachers.

 

Lake County Metroparks in Ohio even voiced concern to NEOGeocachers about a virtual placed in one of their parks. They really didn't want the cache listed but couldn't come up with a way to prevent it. After all, the cache used the trails and interpretive signs that were already in place. What were they going to do, pass a rule making it illegal to possess a GPSr in the parks? We've tried to open a dialog with them but it isn't going anywhere fast. We've even committed to volunteer hours but it hasn't helped.

Just another thought...

 

How about hold a CITO Event in any of those parks to show how many cachers would be willing to HELP there park just by being there! Maybe that would help the Rangers decisions.

Link to comment
How about hold a CITO Event in any of those parks to show how many cachers would be willing to HELP there park just by being there! Maybe that would help the Rangers decisions.

The issues we experience extend far beyond a single ranger with a grudge. We've had meetings with the BOD's of some of these parks without success. Events like CITO's are always part of the presentation. It's just much easier for the people in charge of the parks to say no. The aren't many avenues for appeal short of getting enough signatures to make it a county-wide ballot issue. We all know that will never happen.

Link to comment
What will happen if they are banned is that somebody else will start a new website for virtuals only and then land owners will still insist on virtuals and then gc.com will lose all of its members and the new site will add traditionals, benchmarks and everything else and since they will have a majority of the players, they will thrive.

waypoint.org already exists, but i don't see virtual lovers flocking there and leaving gc.com behind.........

Link to comment
What will happen if they are banned is that somebody else will start a new website for virtuals only and then land owners will still insist on virtuals and then gc.com will lose all of its members and the new site will add traditionals, benchmarks and everything else and since they will have a majority of the players, they will thrive.

waypoint.org already exists, but i don't see virtual lovers flocking there and leaving gc.com behind.........

No, but waypoint.org doesn't give you a smiley for finding anything.

Link to comment
Not all of those options are going to be handled to your satisfaction on this particular site. Get over it.

 

I WILL NOT GET OVER IT! I have a voice. I will use it. That is what a forum is for. Just because we don't agree...things do not have to be on the personal side.

I just took a moment and re-read the Forum Guidelines, The Caching guidelines, and the FAQ.

Guess what. no where in there does it say you get a vote.

You may certainly state your opinion, but that does not mean you get a vote in how things are run in this business. Please remember that there is a difference between Geocaching and Geocaching.com. One is a hobby one is a business. There is a difference when discussing things

Link to comment
What will happen if they are banned is that somebody else will start a new website for virtuals only and then land owners will still insist on virtuals and then gc.com will lose all of its members and the new site will add traditionals, benchmarks and everything else and since they will have a majority of the players, they will thrive.

I've seen this argument come up so many times in the 18 months that I've been participating that it is virtually so off-base. Other sites have started, and yet the droves leaving gc.com to those other sites has yet to happen.

 

In otherwords... Don't kid yourself. Nobody takes that threat seriously.

Link to comment
What will happen if they are banned is that somebody else will start a new website for virtuals only and then land owners will still insist on virtuals and then gc.com will lose all of its members and the new site will add traditionals, benchmarks and everything else and since they will have a majority of the players, they will thrive.

The bottom line is that it's going to take more than just offering an alternate site to attract caches and cachers. People have to have a reason to go to the other site. Something they find they like or something that compells them. Virtuals are not enough by themselves. Nor is having the entire variety of caches available enough by itself to do much of anything.

 

A killer new cache catagory could do it, but you have to find that catagory and GC.com has to miss the boat. One is possible, but both happening isn't likely.

Link to comment
Not all of those options are going to be handled to your satisfaction on this particular site. Get over it.

 

I WILL NOT GET OVER IT! I have a voice. I will use it. That is what a forum is for. Just because we don't agree...things do not have to be on the personal side.

I just took a moment and re-read the Forum Guidelines, The Caching guidelines, and the FAQ.

Guess what. no where in there does it say you get a vote.

You may certainly state your opinion, but that does not mean you get a vote in how things are run in this business. Please remember that there is a difference between Geocaching and Geocaching.com. One is a hobby one is a business. There is a difference when discussing things

No offense meant, but I went back and reread the quoted post, and did a page search and didn't find anything about a vote on options or how to run Geocaching.com in this threaed. The only time Kayakanimal mentioned voting was when proposing talking to your congressman about national or state policies banning caches. Where was voting about an option on, or the policies of Geocaching.com mentioned? I couldn't find it. Is it possible that you mis-read "voice" for "vote"?

 

As you stated, the forums are where we voice our opinions. And that was what Kayakanimal was doing, when someone else indicated that he was tired of hearing the opposing side of the argument.

 

Thanks to you and all the other admin/monitors for a great job you're doing for a great Site.

 

Cache Well

Link to comment
Not all of those options are going to be handled to your satisfaction on this particular site. Get over it.

 

I WILL NOT GET OVER IT! I have a voice. I will use it. That is what a forum is for. Just because we don't agree...things do not have to be on the personal side.

I just took a moment and re-read the Forum Guidelines, The Caching guidelines, and the FAQ.

Guess what. no where in there does it say you get a vote.

You may certainly state your opinion, but that does not mean you get a vote in how things are run in this business. Please remember that there is a difference between Geocaching and Geocaching.com. One is a hobby one is a business. There is a difference when discussing things

No offense meant, but I went back and reread the quoted post, and did a page search and didn't find anything about a vote on options or how to run Geocaching.com in this threaed. The only time Kayakanimal mentioned voting was when proposing talking to your congressman about national or state policies banning caches. Where was voting about an option on, or the policies of Geocaching.com mentioned? I couldn't find it. Is it possible that you mis-read "voice" for "vote"?

 

As you stated, the forums are where we voice our opinions. And that was what Kayakanimal was doing, when someone else indicated that he was tired of hearing the opposing side of the argument.

 

Thanks to you and all the other admin/monitors for a great job you're doing for a great Site.

 

Cache Well

Thats not how I read it, but Hey, Ive been wrong before.......

Link to comment
Not all of those options are going to be handled to your satisfaction on this particular site. Get over it.

 

I WILL NOT GET OVER IT! I have a voice. I will use it. That is what a forum is for. Just because we don't agree...things do not have to be on the personal side.

I just took a moment and re-read the Forum Guidelines, The Caching guidelines, and the FAQ.

Guess what. no where in there does it say you get a vote.

You may certainly state your opinion, but that does not mean you get a vote in how things are run in this business. Please remember that there is a difference between Geocaching and Geocaching.com. One is a hobby one is a business. There is a difference when discussing things

No offense meant, but I went back and reread the quoted post, and did a page search and didn't find anything about a vote on options or how to run Geocaching.com in this threaed. The only time Kayakanimal mentioned voting was when proposing talking to your congressman about national or state policies banning caches. Where was voting about an option on, or the policies of Geocaching.com mentioned? I couldn't find it. Is it possible that you mis-read "voice" for "vote"?

 

As you stated, the forums are where we voice our opinions. And that was what Kayakanimal was doing, when someone else indicated that he was tired of hearing the opposing side of the argument.

 

Thanks to you and all the other admin/monitors for a great job you're doing for a great Site.

 

Cache Well

Thats not how I read it, but Hey, Ive been wrong before.......

I did say VOICE not VOTE. Forums are where you VOICE your opinion. I am sorry if you READ it any other way. I did NOT write it that way or even IMPLY it that way.

 

Thanks,

Kayakanimal

Link to comment
What will happen if they are banned is that somebody else will start a new website for virtuals only and then land owners will still insist on virtuals and then gc.com will lose all of its members and the new site will add traditionals, benchmarks and everything else and since they will have a majority of the players, they will thrive.

waypoint.org already exists, but i don't see virtual lovers flocking there and leaving gc.com behind.........

Hmmmm. waypoint.org? I'll check it out... thanks.

Link to comment
What will happen if they are banned is that somebody else will start a new website for virtuals only and then land owners will still insist on virtuals and then gc.com will lose all of its members and the new site will add traditionals, benchmarks and everything else and since they will have a majority of the players, they will thrive.

waypoint.org already exists, but i don't see virtual lovers flocking there and leaving gc.com behind.........

Hmmmm. waypoint.org? I'll check it out... thanks.

Ecoscavenging is better suited for virtual caches.

Link to comment
What will happen if they are banned is that somebody else will start a new website for virtuals only and then land owners will still insist on virtuals and then gc.com will lose all of its members and the new site will add traditionals, benchmarks and everything else and since they will have a majority of the players, they will thrive.

waypoint.org already exists, but i don't see virtual lovers flocking there and leaving gc.com behind.........

Hmmmm. waypoint.org? I'll check it out... thanks.

Ecoscavenging is better suited for virtual caches.

http://www.ecoscavenger.com/

Link to comment
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?

I have one and only one Virtual that is much like what Keystone's post refers to, that is in an area of archeological interest and the cache takes the finder to an interesting spot not covered by tourist guides. My cache page has a write up straight from a archeological report I have access to along with current and historical pictures.

 

It was my first cache request done around the time of my earliest finds of the few I have. After reading comments in the forums about Virts I figured if it went unfound for long periods or the logs did not reflect an appreciation then I would archive it. To date it gets fairly regular visits and very favorable logs.

 

I will most likely not do another Virtual but I have enjoyed this one since it helps people to see and know the original Mission site especially after Visiting current La Purisima Mission site about 5 miles away that is maintained by the CA State Parks. Even in their visitor center there is little mention of the original site.

Link to comment

I tried to create a virt. recently of a very interesting, beautiful and largely unknown area. The cache location forces the cacher to the top of a hill overlooking the entire area and the 'question' can be answered without even getting out of the car. I created the virtual because of the people I know who got very excited about caching when they saw what I was doing. The idea of virtuals was exciting to them as they are physically challenged. But, that's ok. They are used to getting discriminated against. Silly me, I thought caching was trying to find a specific pont on the planet - regardless of what was at the final destination. I didn't realize that it was limited to what the 'powers to be' WANT you to find (for whatever reason)

This should be changed in the Geocaching FAQ:

Are there any variations in the game?

 

YES! We strongly encourage it, actually. Geocaching is a game that constantly reinvents itself, and the rules are very flexible. If you have a new idea on how to place a cache, or a new game using GPS units, we'd love to hear about it.

 

Some examples -

 

Offset Caches - They're not found by simply going to some coordinates and finding a cache there. With the Offset Cache the published coordinates are that of an existing historical monument, plaque, or even a benchmark that you would like to have your cache hunter visit. From this site the cache hunter must look around and find offset numbers stamped/written in or on some part of the marker site, or continue based on instructions posted to geocaching.com

Multi-caches - The first cache gives coordinates (or partial coordinates) to the next location, or multiple caches have hints to the final cache.

Virtual caches - A cache is actually an existing landmark, such as a tombstone or statue. You have to answer a question from the landmark and let the "cache" owner know as proof that you were there.

 

Guess I'll go hide a tub-'o-junk instead....

Link to comment
Silly me, I thought caching was trying to find a specific pont on the planet - regardless of what was at the final destination.

Where did you come up with that definition?

 

Here's the one I'm familiar with:

The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches. Once found, a cache may provide the visitor with a wide variety of rewards. All the visitor is asked to do is if they get something they should try to leave something for the cache.

 

You've somehow managed to concoct a definition of geocaching, that completely omits the caching part.

Link to comment

However it DOES say in the FAQ ...existing landmark, such as a tombstone or statue...

 

And from the guidelines:

 

Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.

 

Seems to be conflicting data...

Link to comment
However it DOES say in the FAQ ...existing landmark, such as a tombstone or statue...

 

And from the guidelines:

 

Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.

 

Seems to be conflicting data...

There are a lot of conflicting data in the guidelines. There is probably a re-write in order. Some things also need to be re-worded a bit too.

Link to comment
Man, are you missing the point.

What is the point today?

I cannot BELIEVE that there is such an issue with wanting to just add a virtual cache. Is the the server going to explode from one more virtual? Will traditional cachers avoid caching because of it? No one will ever want to look for it, will they? It's just a stupid time-wasting virtual. I like all kinds of caches - some more than others. I just wanted some friends to have fun. You win. I withdraw it. You can high-five each other now...

Link to comment
Not all of those options are going to be handled to your satisfaction on this particular site. Get over it.

 

I WILL NOT GET OVER IT! I have a voice. I will use it. That is what a forum is for. Just because we don't agree...things do not have to be on the personal side.

I just took a moment and re-read the Forum Guidelines, The Caching guidelines, and the FAQ.

Guess what. no where in there does it say you get a vote.

You may certainly state your opinion, but that does not mean you get a vote in how things are run in this business. Please remember that there is a difference between Geocaching and Geocaching.com. One is a hobby one is a business. There is a difference when discussing things

- GPS is not needed to find the location. Published maps exist that tell everyone how to get here. By reading the cache description, I would not need a GPS to complete this virtual.

 

Above is part of a response I received today from an admin in wisconsin for a virt I wanted approved. It was the deciding factor in my not becoming a Premium Member. YES, I DO HAVE A VOTE. $$$$$$$$

Link to comment

This is in response to your other topic. My reply didn't get posted before it was locked...

 

but most of them I live to far away

 

Virtual or Traditional, it would be considered a "Vacation cache", which isn't allowed. Surely there's some little-known historic monument near your own home that could be a suitable Virtual?

 

Personally, I don't mind Virtuals. Better than another road-ditch tupperware or a park crammed with micros every 500 feet...

 

-Bob

Link to comment

In response to ~this~ topic:

 

There are many unknown/unvisited/forgotten/interesting/neglected monuments, markers, or plaques that would make good Virtual cache locations. Here's one (the second monument):

 

GCGGCN

 

In fact, it's so forgotten that it was moved during recent construction and now I can't find it! The ladies who work at the adjacent visitor center have no idea where it's gone to either, and never noticed it was gone until I asked. One didn't even know what monument I was talking about.

 

I agree that there's not much sense in a "Statue of Liberty Virtual" or "Old Faithful Geyser Statue."

 

-Bob

Edited by Bobthearch
Link to comment

More liberal poilicies for "interesting" virtuals ought to be considered in National Parks and other areas than ban physical caches. Some of these places are wonderful places to visit and hike. It' s a benefit to cachers who would get a chance to experience these areas if there's a virt goal "hidden" along the way. Maybe a series of waypoints at waterfalls or along a trail than one has to get clues from and report the answer to file a "find".

 

Let's not cut ourselves off from these wonderful places.

Link to comment

The thing no-one seems to realize is:

If you are hunting a traditional, will you accidentally find a virtual?

If you are hunting a virtual, will you accidentally find a traditional?

Therefore, IMHO, virtuals should not have to be a certain distance from traditionals, and vice versa. There should be distance rules from traditional to traditional, and virtual to virtual, but not traditional to virtual or virtual to traditional.

Link to comment
The thing no-one seems to realize is:

If you are hunting a traditional, will you accidentally find a virtual?

If you are hunting a virtual, will you accidentally find a traditional?

Therefore, IMHO, virtuals should not have to be a certain distance from traditionals, and vice versa. There should be distance rules from traditional to traditional, and virtual to virtual, but not traditional to virtual or virtual to traditional.

You're hardly the first person to come up with that argument. It might make sense, if the only reason for the rule was to eliminate confusion. But it's not. It's not even the first reason:

 

Cache Saturation

...the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

 

And notice that it's the "Cache Saturation" rule, not the "Cache Confusion" rule.

Link to comment
The thing no-one seems to realize is:

If you are hunting a traditional, will you accidentally find a virtual?

If you are hunting a virtual, will you accidentally find a traditional?

Therefore, IMHO, virtuals should not have to be a certain distance from traditionals, and vice versa. There should be distance rules from traditional to traditional, and virtual to virtual, but not traditional to virtual or virtual to traditional.

You're hardly the first person to come up with that argument. It might make sense, if the only reason for the rule was to eliminate confusion. But it's not. It's not even the first reason:

 

Cache Saturation

...the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

 

And notice that it's the "Cache Saturation" rule, not the "Cache Confusion" rule.

Why do we want to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area?

 

Yerocrg

Link to comment

Why do we want to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area?

 

Yerocrg

Well, nobody is "reducing" them, just not arbitraily approving them. There are a few caches out

 

To the question at hand, many folks feel that too many caches in one spot takes the spirit out of the game. Someone could setup a series of caches 10 feet apart, then in a one mile walk, you can sign 528 log books. That would be a bunch of 35MM film canisters along a park trail, but it would get you cache count up.

 

Another what if... 30 people plan an event at the same place at the same time. You go in and sign 29 log books, 29 people sign yours. That'll get you count up also!

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