Virtuals, Virtuals, Virtuals....virtuals...virtual

August 23, 2004

In my mind, the obvious solution for removing GC.com of the "virtual headache" would be to draw the hard-line and decree that "Virtuals are forever banned and will no longer be approved".

Since, we have been told to count on our virtual submission to be rejected: "Consider that your virtual cache will most likely not get listed. That way you are prepared for disappointment." Why does CG.com even entertain the idea of allowing any new virtuals the express privilege of being granted a spot on the GC.com website, in the first place?

My opinion is that for every cacher "against virtuals" there is an equal number of cachers "for virtuals" and obviously GC.com knows this and does not want to upset a large portion of its supporters. I think that GC.com should draw the hard-line and deny all future virtuals and place them in the ranks of locationless caches, otherwise they should open it up to all virtuals that meet a defined virtual criteria…And no, this is not the way it is currently done!

1.8k · August 23, 2004

My opinion is that for every cacher "against virtuals" there is an equal number of cachers "for virtuals" and obviously GC.com knows this and does not want to upset a large portion of its supporters. I think that GC.com should draw the hard-line and deny all future virtuals and place them in the ranks of locationless caches, otherwise they should open it up to all virtuals that meet a defined virtual criteria…And no, this is not the way it is currently done!

Apparently, if they don't meet YOUR "defined virtual criteria," since you're not happy, but they definitely have a policy. My sister was recently denied by KA, and she had her heart set on it. When she answered his questions, though, the response was in keeping with the policy. 'nuff said.

:blink: Bet this goes 3 pages...and why??? 'cause idiots like me can't just let it die...come on, everybody else, let it die.

3.8k · August 23, 2004

...My opinion is that for every cacher "against virtuals" there is an equal number of cachers "for virtuals" and obviously GC.com knows this...

Is this a poll? :blink: :blink:

38.2k · August 23, 2004

I think that GC.com should draw the hard-line and deny all future virtuals and place them in the ranks of locationless caches...

Oh, that will make them popular :blink: .

otherwise they should open it up to all virtuals that meet a defined virtual criteria…

They already have:

1-The virtual has to be a permanent landmark of a very unique and compelling nature.

2-It has to be impossible to incorporate a real cache.

August 23, 2004

If you ban virtuals, then you eliminate the possibility of sharing some particularly interesting or beautiful places that don't allow for a physical cache, and that would be a shame. I suspect that's why gc.com still allows them under specific circumstances.

3k · August 23, 2004

Since, we have been told to count on our virtual submission to be rejected: "Consider that your virtual cache will most likely not get listed. That way you are prepared for disappointment." Why does CG.com even entertain the idea of allowing any new virtuals the express privilege of being granted a spot on the GC.com website, in the first place?

I am of the opinion that the proliferation of "lame" micro caches is the direct result of GC.com's attempt to eliminate a proliferation of "lame" virtual caches. It appears that GC.com has accomplished that "and a whole lot more." (Or less, I suppose, depending on one's perspective.) As things are now, instead of visiting, and perhaps even learning something from, a monument or historical marker, one merely stops at the end of the guardrail and signs the log in the "hide-a-key" cache without being inconvenienced by even looking at the monument or historical marker. Granted, the "hide-a-key" cache is truer to "the roots of the game," but is it of greater value?

I think my daughter's virtual cache is a good example of a virtual cache with "Wow" factor that wouldn't be approved today. One can see and learn quite a bit, and have their appetite whetted to discover more, visiting the site and seeking the answers to the questions. A bison capsule attached to the corner post of the fence would eliminate any reason to seek those answers. The value of the cache would therefore be diminished.

My opinion is that for every cacher "against virtuals" there is an equal number of cachers "for virtuals" and obviously GC.com knows this and does not want to upset a large portion of its supporters.

I don't agree with that last part at all. I am of the opinion that Groundspeak, Inc., the owner of geocaching.com, is entirely disinterested in how many supporters (which I take to mean "paying members") it alienates. The attrition rate is high, but more people are joining than leaving. In all likelyhood, the "alienated supporter" has already purchased a subscription for the year, and is therefore expendable. To quote the owner of Groundspeak: "Tough nuts." I suspect a frequent turnover of "supporters" is probably viewed as a positive development; new members have lower expectations. To them, the game is what it was when they discovered it. (But in time, each "new batch" encounters its own issues.)

1.2k · August 23, 2004

(The following is directed to no one individual who may or may not have posted in this thread.)

I love the mind reading ability's of some Geocachers. Kreskin would be proud.

Everyone assumes to know what GC.com is thinking and why they are thinking it. Can one of you give me this weeks winning power ball numbers?

If the last 50 threads about Virtual caches has not provided the answer you seek. Perhaps this one will not either. Give it a rest. It will change when it changes and no amount of Threads about it will make it happen any faster.

Someone who is talented should make a meter pic for angst similar to the one for fighting in the forums.

August 23, 2004

I love virtuals and locationless ones! As an older geocaching with some phyical limitations these are right up my alley.

I'm hesitate to go geocaching by myself for the above stated reasons. So going to see a plaque, statue or a location is just great for me.

I hope they will open them back up soon. I've done quite a few of the locationless ones and have learned a lot about my area.

Another vote for virtuals and locationless caches!

3k · August 23, 2004

It will change when it changes and no amount of Threads about it will make it happen any faster.

How do you know that? Did "Signal" contact "Kimono" directly from "the Lily Pad?" :blink:

Edited August 23, 2004 by BassoonPilot

2.2k · August 23, 2004

strange! virtuals are being approved in michigan. i know of at least 1 of them this month. :blink:

4.8k · August 23, 2004

Someone who is talented should make a meter pic for angst similar to the one for fighting in the forums.

I wouldn't likely ever post it myself, but I sure would be amused by it!

angst is such a good word.....

Sorry, I don't mean to derail your thread. You all go back to angst and I will try to stop reading this thread now (sometimes I can't tear myself away from the soap opera effect of angst, but I try) :blink:

back to business now....

7.2k · August 23, 2004

It will change when it changes and no amount of Threads about it will make it happen any faster.

How do you know that? Did "Signal" contact "Kimono" directly from "the Lily Pad?"

Yes.

1.2k · August 23, 2004

It will change when it changes and no amount of Threads about it will make it happen any faster.

How do you know that? Did "Signal" contact "Kimono" directly from "the Lily Pad?"

Yes.

That answers that question.

9.1k · August 23, 2004

It will change when it changes and no amount of Threads about it will make it happen any faster.

How do you know that? Did "Signal" contact "Kimono" directly from "the Lily Pad?"

Yes.

That answers that question.

Indeed it does. If memory serves correctly, it was Tuesday August 10th when Signal croaked the cryptic message understood only by hamsters, magic ponies and puppymonsters.

1.6k · August 23, 2004

Banning VC's would be a mistake. A better approach would weigh more heavily on local caching groups and approvers.

Ban ALL forms of caches once a given cache form reaches a saturation point.

Once you have some number of a particular cache type in a defined area, you have enough.

For example, if there are already 5 magnetic keyholders hooked onto park benches in a 20 mile radius of where you want to put one, then don't. 5 is enough. Adding number 6 will not improve the sport or get you a cache hiding black belt.

I was in Kearney, NE at a park where there were many caches in the park. The cache types were varied and highly creative, so even though the density was high, the experience of finding these caches was a great deal of fun. This kind of hiding gets you the black belt.

Even though the over all density of caches was high, the type-specific density was not. You could just hunt micros, or just hunt traditionals, or hunt all of them, and mix it up. This is what we need as a sport, not a bazillion "walmicros", VC's ,or trads that get to be all the same thing over and over again.

Local cache groups need to encourage cachers to be creative, and be different. We also need to help approvers know when "the drive to mall X and find 5 micros in the parking lot" or similar over population condition has been met so that the overdone cache form can be discouraged for a while.

Approvers need to have the cajones to reject a cache once that area and cache type is over done.

1.2k · August 23, 2004

Approvers need to have the cajones to reject a cache once that area and cache type is over done.

Judging by the amount of caches that get rejected I would say that they do already.

9.1k · August 23, 2004

Approvers need to have the cajones to reject a cache once that area and cache type is over done.

Judging by the amount of caches that get rejected I would say that they do already.

No, I had a different take on this statement.

Reviewers need to have the cojones to enforce the published listing guidelines, which they do for the most part. The problem, from bigredmed's perspective, is that there is no place in the guidelines that says that a cache will be rejected if there are too many others that are just like it in the area. Unless and until the guidelines are modified to reflect this concept, archiving a guardrail micro or an ammo box on top of a mountain solely for that reason would not be within the reviewer's authority.

3k · August 23, 2004

If memory serves correctly, it was Tuesday August 10th when Signal croaked the cryptic message understood only by hamsters, magic ponies and puppymonsters.

Amazing. I never thought I'd see a day when the "squirrel with secrets" was left out of the loop. :blink:

9.1k · August 23, 2004

If memory serves correctly, it was Tuesday August 10th when Signal croaked the cryptic message understood only by hamsters, magic ponies and puppymonsters.

Amazing. I never thought I'd see a day when the "squirrel with secrets" was left out of the loop.

Signal tried sending the same message to the Squirrel, but the Squirrel was too busy running around the park, playing with his nuts.

1.2k · August 23, 2004

Approvers need to have the cajones to reject a cache once that area and cache type is over done.

Judging by the amount of caches that get rejected I would say that they do already.

No, I had a different take on this statement.

Reviewers need to have the cojones to enforce the published listing guidelines, which they do for the most part. The problem, from bigredmed's perspective, is that there is no place in the guidelines that says that a cache will be rejected if there are too many others that are just like it in the area. Unless and until the guidelines are modified to reflect this concept, archiving a guardrail micro or an ammo box on top of a mountain solely for that reason would not be within the reviewer's authority.

having re-read the original post I believe that you are more correct than I was (some people just cant say they are wrong ). I will withdraw my comment and bow before your wisdom Sensi-Hamster.

24.7k · August 23, 2004

...I love the mind reading ability's of some Geocachers. Kreskin would be proud.

Everyone assumes to know what GC.com is thinking and why they are thinking it. Can one of you give me this weeks winning power ball numbers?...

Risk Communications 101. Lacking information assumptions will be made. Normally those assumptions will not be both wrong and not favorable to the person or entity that the lack of information is in regards to.

With a little forsight Groundspeak, and even the approvers who volunteer their time can prevent a lot of these assumptions from being made and in general create a positive atmosphere.

Virtuals could very well be a test ground for this type of pro-active behavior. Either that or just ban then entirely so that the issue of approval doesn't come up time and again. The original post does have merit in light of the current environment that this site has created. Do I want to go there? No, but it's worth discussing.

24.7k · August 23, 2004

...Ban ALL forms of caches once a given cache form reaches a saturation point.

Once you have some number of a particular cache type in a defined area, you have enough....

This is completely untenable and would make the approvers jobs a living hell.

A cache meets the sites listing guidelines or not, it meets the landowners rules or not. Getting into the business of splitting the hairs on what exactly a light pole micro is and how many there are and when to cut them off and how to explain why cache X is different from Cache Y that looks the same but somehow is different because one is Under the light pole base and the other one is in a J-Box affixed to the pole...

The debate over WOW is bad enough without extending something similar to every other cache type in existance.

1.6k · August 23, 2004

We need an info pipeline from local groups to the approvers either directly or through Jeremy/Hydee.

Once a given type reaches saturation (eg. 5 of a given type with in 2 square miles would be a defineable criteria), the new submissions have to either replace an existing one or be a different cache type.

We can have parks with 10 caches in them, if there are a couple of trads, a VC, a couple of micros, and a couple of multis, there will be a lot of caching, but something for everyone. This will allow efficient land use and not turn anymore cities into "cacheville".

One thing is for certain, once a city gets polluted like that, the first experience someone has with our game is not going to be "that sounds cool", rather "where do all these stupid things keep coming from". That will not be a good thing.

1.3k · August 23, 2004

Someone who is talented should make a meter pic for angst similar to the one for fighting in the forums.

Will this do?

Edited chart a tad. <_<

Edited August 23, 2004 by Wander Lost

1.6k · August 23, 2004

The bars are great, except the bottom two are probably not needed. <_<

1.8k · August 23, 2004

To Bigredmed, and others: I have a very unusual request. To some of my generation the abbrv. "VC" is ....well, let's just say my head snapped when I red the first one. Not anybody's fault, just because of our history. I would request "virt" be used. I might get used to it...eventually.

4.8k · August 23, 2004

Someone who is talented should make a meter pic for angst similar to the one for fighting in the forums.

Will this do?

Edited chart a tad.

Whoa, I just noticed the edits! Seems fairly accurate! :unsure:

Hmmm but I just now put a smilie in a thread with angst. So the level low might not be quite right!

P.S. I left the pic in the quote in case you edit again. :huh:

Edited August 23, 2004 by carleenp

2.2k · August 23, 2004

i have saved the chart, and am waiting for carleen's permission to use it. <_<

7.2k · August 23, 2004

You should switch elevated and high around I think. Nice job!

August 24, 2004

Meanwhile .... back on topic ...

I think virtual caches have a place. As a previous poster pointed out that if one has disabilities then there are caches still available to them.

My disabilities consist of 2 daughters 3 and 5 that don't care to hike more than 1/2 a mile into the woods while being eaten by mosquitos.

9.4k · August 24, 2004

Meanwhile .... back on topic ...

I think virtual caches have a place. As a previous poster pointed out that if one has disabilities then there are caches still available to them.

My disabilities consist of 2 daughters 3 and 5 that don't care to hike more than 1/2 a mile into the woods while being eaten by mosquitos.

I've seen many caches placed in parks or near sidewalks. Just because someone is disabled doesn't mean they don't want to find a container and logbook

BTW, my youngest was 14 months when we started geocaching. When he was 2, we did a 4 mile hike. He hiked at least 3 miles of it on his own. Don't tell me that kids are a disability.

August 24, 2004

"...Carin... says sometimes the hill is too steep or rocky for the kids to climb safely, so Larry will climb up, find the cache and bring it down to the kids."

That is all I was trying to say. There are some terrains etc... that don't lend themselves to little legs or they don't have the stamina. Glad yours does. No I don't think my children are a disability.

Edited August 24, 2004 by OpinioNate

9.4k · August 24, 2004

"...Carin...says sometimes the hill is too steep or rocky for the kids to climb safely, so Larry will climb up, find the cache and bring it down to the kids."

That is all I was trying to say. There are some terrains etc... that don't lend themselves to little legs or they don't have the stamina. Glad yours does. No I don't think my children are a disability.

That's what terrain ratings are for. I can do any terrain. My kids can do terrain 2-3. Handicapped people can do terrain 1. The joy is still finding a cache container and the location it's in.

Edited August 24, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

2.1k · August 24, 2004

BTW, my youngest was 14 months when we started geocaching. When he was 2, we did a 4 mile hike. He hiked at least 3 miles of it on his own. Don't tell me that kids are a disability.

Don't put words in his mouth. He said his kids make it hard for him to do geocaches that require extensive hiking, not that all kids are disabilities at geocaching.

In the meantime, I don't think it's necessary to justify virtual caches existing by trying to establish a group of people by whatever standard who *have* to have them available. I think it's sufficient to justify them by establishing that there are a group of people who *want* to have them available.

1.3k · August 24, 2004

I hate it when people try to pass off virts as an option for people with disabilities. Just because a person has physical limitations doesn't mean that they want to 'settle' for a drive by historical marker.

As for your girls, I did my first cache when my son was 2 months old. It adds a star or two to the difficulty/terrain level when I cache with the kids, but it also adds to the fun. And I don't know about your girls, but my boys would be very upset with mom if I told them we were going geocaching and all they got to hunt for was a parking spot.

Edited August 24, 2004 by Wander Lost

1.6k · August 24, 2004

Virtuals have a place where regular caches and micros won't work. We need to keep them.

As per my previous posts, we need to have a better system to keep from getting any particular cache form growing out of control.

We had this problem with locationless caches until they finally just imploded from their own number and banality. Not all the LC's were banal, many of the original ones were good. The unregulated form rapidly decayed into a collection of "find a buick and send in a picture" type LC's that didn't add to the game.

VC's and micros, trads, and multis all can be over done. They can get to the point of banality.

We need to avoid this if the sport is to continue to grow. VC's offer a chance to layer different cache types into a park or a green space where the 500 foot mark comes close.

1.8k · August 24, 2004

I think I mentioned above that my Sister was denied a series of virts around Akron, through historical sections. You'll find her first solution here, and I think she did a fine job where the intent of the virt is accomplished, plus a physical cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...bb-4547045c21c7

This is the whole point: if you can do this, then do this. Read the logs.

24.7k · August 24, 2004

I hate it when people try to pass off virts as an option for people with disabilities. Just because a person has physical limitations doesn't mean that they want to 'settle' for a drive by historical marker....

You mean they aren't an option? There is nothing to stop someone of any ability from seeking any cache they choose, but options are nice.

Sometimes you need to settle or do without. That's why bars have closing time.

9.4k · August 24, 2004

I hate it when people try to pass off virts as an option for people with disabilities. Just because a person has physical limitations doesn't mean that they want to 'settle' for a drive by historical marker....

You mean they aren't an option? There is nothing to stop someone of any ability from seeking any cache they choose, but options are nice.

Sometimes you need to settle or do without. That's why bars have closing time.

I think you missed the point here, RK. Why can't handicapped people just search for regular caches that have a terrain rating of 1? Why make them only hunt virtuals?

1.3k · August 24, 2004

You mean they aren't an option? There is nothing to stop someone of any ability from seeking any cache they choose, but options are nice.

All I was trying to say is that in every thread I've read about virtual caches someone brings up how great they are for people with physical limitations. I don't see that as a valid arguement for virtuals. That is why we have various terrain ratings on caches so everyone can judge for themselves if the cache is reachable based on their own abilities or limitations. To say that we need to open up the virtual posting guidelines so there are more virts for handicapped people to 'find' is an insult.

I won't come in here and say I like virtuals, I don't. I agree that they have their place in this game, but only when a physical isn't possible.

24.7k · August 24, 2004

I hate it when people try to pass off virts as an option for people with disabilities. Just because a person has physical limitations doesn't mean that they want to 'settle' for a drive by historical marker....

You mean they aren't an option? There is nothing to stop someone of any ability from seeking any cache they choose, but options are nice.

Sometimes you need to settle or do without. That's why bars have closing time.

I think you missed the point here, RK. Why can't handicapped people just search for regular caches that have a terrain rating of 1? Why make them only hunt virtuals?

I'm not sure you saw what I was getting at.

Anyone can search for any cache they want. Virtuals by nature tend to be more ADA compliant. They are one option among many. However no purpose is served by saying they are not an option for accessable caching. Because they are. Further because they do tend to be more ADA compliant (ie an actual 1 on terrain) the success ratio increases. It's frustrating to seek a cache that you can't find, and worse still when you can't get to it because the terrain is rated incorrectly.

I'll stand by my statment. They are one option among many. An option that tends to be more accesable friendly. If someone wants to hunt everything but virtuals, enjoy. That's the point after all.

Lets hope they do remain one of the options.

4.5k · August 25, 2004

One place where virtuals should be allowed are in National Parks and other park areas where no containers may be placed. These parks are beuatiful places to visit and hike. What's wrong with having specific locations to hike to and get a clue to report? It will get cachers into wonderful areas we wouldn't visit otherwise. with great pictures and logs.

August 25, 2004

One place where virtuals should be allowed are in National Parks and other park areas where no containers may be placed. These parks are beuatiful places to visit and hike. What's wrong with having specific locations to hike to and get a clue to report? It will get cachers into wonderful areas we wouldn't visit otherwise. with great pictures and logs.

Exactly ....

Here is an example of just that ...

Let's forget the whole disabilities thing ... I enjoy them. I also enjoy regular caches and multiple caches. They all have their place. If someone does not like them, don't do them. Don't even look at a page with them on it. But I don't think removing the choice altogether is the right thing to do.

2.7k · August 25, 2004

Since I placed a lot of virtuals that have received good reviews from a broad spectrum of cachers I just can't understand what the huff and puff is about. Either you like them and look for them or ignore them and go on.

Its a shame that we must put these caches on the back burner just because the preference is to look for a box in the bushes by the road with some McD's junk in it.

August 25, 2004

I think that one of the drawbacks of a virtual is the lack of a specific hunt. Any virtual I've been to you could find with a basic set of street directions: Go to X street in front of Y building, read this plaque.

You don't normally spend an hour crawling high and low looking for one, and you don't really need a GPS. (Yes, I know, you don't *really* need a GPS for any geocache... But you'd still need maps, compass etc.)

Regards,

Anthony

24.7k · August 25, 2004

I think that one of the drawbacks of a virtual is the lack of a specific hunt. Any virtual I've been to you could find with a basic set of street directions: Go to X street in front of Y building, read this plaque...

The plaque is nothing more than a means of verification. Alas some people view that as the purpose of the virtual, when it's not.

With a traditional you find the cache, that's the point. The log isn't the point.

With a virtual you find the area, the history lesson, the view or something else someone found worthy. The plaque is the easiest form of verification since there is no log. If there was a log you would have to stick it in a container and then hide the container...

As for how to hunt them. I would agree there is some room for creativity. Id rather walk the fields at litte big horn than read the road side sign though the signs would give me some history that won't be in the field either. Virtuals could use a dose of creativity.

August 25, 2004

To me virtuals are like the catch all for people who want to own/hide/place a cache but don't want any of the maintenance responsabilities. A very high percentage of places (99%?) can handle a micro or traditional.

Of course that's just my opinion.

Thorin

August 25, 2004

To me virtuals are like the catch all for people who want to own/hide/place a cache but don't want any of the maintenance responsabilities.A very high percentage of places (99%?) can handle a micro or traditional.

The history or knowledge gained from visiting the location is what the hider would be attempting to relay to you. To show people something of interest, unique or of historical relevance, etc..

That information has nothing to do with an altoids tin stuck to the nearest bench.

It wouldnt take away that newly gained knowledge by having to sign a log in a tin box, but the lt would make for an easy-out denial of the listing for maintenance reasons, vacation cache, or other loopholes.

Maintanence shouldnt be required for giving people a history lesson, a great view, etc-

The experience "is" the "find". Maybe holding thier hands would help too, but ...........

just my .02

7.2k · August 25, 2004

Maintanence shouldnt be required for giving people a history lesson, a great view, etc-
The experience "is" the "find". Maybe holding thier hands would help too, but ...........

just my .02

But, over and over it is demonstrated that maintenance is an issue...

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...731&LID=4613723

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...bc-2140a8bad990

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...28-fa6f4f536741

Interesting how the last folks claimed a find when the signs were gone.

2.7k · August 25, 2004

As for how to hunt them. I would agree there is some room for creativity. Id rather walk the fields at litte big horn than read the road side sign though the signs would give me some history that won't be in the field either. Virtuals could use a dose of creativity.

Creativity is the real key to a good virtual. And I have always strived for ways to make my virtuals a lot more work than a drive and bag traditional. Just because I like virtuals doesn't mean that according to Thorin "To me virtuals are like the catch all for people who want to own/hide/place a cache but don't want any of the maintenance responsabilities". They are not a "catch all" but just a way to get creative with the use of a GPS. I have enough Traditionals hidden and keep up the maintenance more often than cachers get off their fat duffs and look for them.

And I may be able to Fill in the Blank again. When I go do maintenance at this Cache. And RK I think the creativity of your former Fill in the Blank was and is quite evident of what a good virtual is. Now that its changed hands I may be able to bag this one a couple of more times. Nothing like getting back in the hills finding the quad name, then placing a Cache there. And waiting to see who has the stamina and brains.

Virtuals, Virtuals, Virtuals....virtuals...virtual

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment