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

[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.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

I see your point, it's great to share great locations and experiences with others. That's half or more of the enjoyment of the whole thing.

 

I guess I was just thinking more along the lines of; if I want to see sights etc I consult travel websites, hotel websites, city websites, local hiking/adventuring groups, etc. I don't check gc.com for site seeing tours. Or on the flip side; I'm a stats junky what a great way to accumulate "hides" if I list 40 million virtuals that have absolutely no maintenance requirements.

 

Make any sense? Edit: Maybe I'm not making sense......just ignore me.

 

Tahosa and Sons Note I said "to me" and "99%". I never implied that it was anything but my own personal opinion, nor it I suggest that it applied to all virtuals or hiders. Thanks for the nice red standout text though. Love seeing my name in lights.

 

Thorin

Edited August 25, 2004 by thorin

[+eigengott]

I think that GC.com should draw the hard-line and deny all future virtuals

A much easier solution: All cachers draw the hard line and stop submitting new virtuals.

 

Something more in-between: I'd like an opt-out functionality, so that virtuals don't pop up in cache searches, statistics etc. (Yes, I know about the features of pocket queries.)

[+Allen_L]

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

But since I found the answer without even getting near the missing signs, can I claim it as a find?

 

Edited August 25, 2004 by AllenLacy

[Pto]

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

 

They were active for a few months until something happened to the item the hider inteneded for people to see. They were then archived.

 

By maintenance, do you mean the hider should have disabled the cache page sooner, or do you mean the hider has some responsiblity to fix the item/replace the plaque, etc?

.

If you mean updating the page, then ALL cache types should be treated the same.

Cito, events, etc like This one and This one and

This one need to be archived too.

 

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

 

I wouldnt have,and would delete the find if it was mine - but Its about the numbers to some peole while for others its not- So?

I guess if it was archived, they wouldnt have hunted it, and couldnt have claimed the find, but given the way it went- what harm was done?To who?

Edited August 25, 2004 by Pto

[+Gonzo-YT]

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...

 

I agree totally, the point of the cache is the search and hopefully the find. That's kind of what I was trying to say.

 

Let's think about a wilderness virtual -- sounds like a great idea. Gets you out to some cool places, which is why I love this game. But, I could just as easily look for hikes in a guidebook or from a local map. I don't need a GPS and a geocache to do that. I've got photos from lots of pretty lakes and mountain peaks -- I don't need to call those geocaches.

 

Out on the land, I'm using GPS, maps, compass, regardless of whether I'm geocaching, hiking, skiing, fishing, or hunting. So I guess what I am trying to say is that the physical search and find is what, for me, defines the activity as "geocaching."

 

Keep in mind this is just my personal take on virtuals and geocaching. I don't wring my hands with grief because they're listed on the website, and I'm sure I'll log a few more myself in the future. This game is all about having fun, after all.

[+Gonzo-YT]

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

 

I wouldnt have,and would delete the find if it was mine - but Its about the numbers to some peole while for others its not- So?

I guess if it was archived, they wouldnt have hunted it, and couldnt have claimed the find, but given the way it went- what harm was done?To who?

 

My take is that geocaching is a location-based game, not knowledge based. To me, the point is finding the location and not the date/information that verifies the find. Obviously, those people had found the right location, makes sense to log it in a way.

 

Dunno though, I agree it's no skin off my nose one way or the other.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Let's think about a wilderness virtual -- sounds like a great idea. Gets you out to some cool places, which is why I love this game. But, I could just as easily look for hikes in a guidebook or from a local map. I don't need a GPS and a geocache to do that. I've got photos from lots of pretty lakes and mountain peaks -- I don't need to call those geocaches...

My first cache was Initial Point near Kuna Idaho. The purpose of the cache was to get you to Initial Point. Great view and as it happens the point of origin for the Boise Township and Range.

 

Because I knew right were this was I knew where to look for the cache and drove right out. I was skunked because the location to hide the box vs. the actual initial point were 100' apart.

 

The box doesn't make the location any better, or worse for that matter. That it was 100' over didn't change the experience all that much either. (Ignore that I had to come back to find it) I'll admit that finding something hidden is more fun than finding words on a plaque. Still I think we differ on a matter of perspective more than anything else.

 

Consider, a virtual should be like figuring out that there is a babe in the painting "The Last Supper". Maybe that's the hard part of making a virtual. Figuring out a means of confirming the find such that it's as interesting as finding a box. If more virtuals did that, maybe you would enjoy them more than you do now. I know I would.

[+mtn-man]

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

 

They were active for a few months until something happened to the item the hider inteneded for people to see. They were then archived.

 

By maintenance, do you mean the hider should have disabled the cache page sooner, or do you mean the hider has some responsiblity to fix the item/replace the plaque, etc?

I mean neither. Re-read what you said and then my answer.

 

You said:

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 ...........

 

I am giving you three prime examples illustrating that maintenance IS an issue and giving you examples of why it is in fact required.

 

To answer your new question, I think the cachers should have been responsible and *archived* these caches themselves rather than it getting to the point to where a "should be archived" note was posted and a site admin had to archive the cache.

 

Feel free to post "should be archived" notes on the caches you have linked it hey bother you so much. That is what that function is there for.

 

For the last example, which claimed the find, I never said any harm was done. I only said it was interesting.

[+Gonzo-YT]

The box doesn't make the location any better, or worse for that matter. That it was 100' over didn't change the experience all that much either. (Ignore that I had to come back to find it) I'll admit that finding something hidden is more fun than finding words on a plaque. Still I think we differ on a matter of perspective more than anything else.

 

I'm not trying to say that the box makes the location better, not at all. What I'm saying is, if I was in the area and wanted to see Initial Point, I would take a hike and go see it.

 

To me, the caching part is the searching around under rocks and trees that you do to find the box. Without the caching, it is a great hike. With a physical cache, it's a great hike coupled with searching for a cache. The two are kind of exclusive for me.

 

Actually, exclusive is a bad phrase. More like mutually enhancing. Caches suggest good trips, and finding caches is a fun thing to do when you reach the destination of such a trip. I will do one without the other, but together they're more fun.

 

I hope I don't sound in any way confrontational... For me this has been an interesting dialogue, I have no personal stake in this discussion. Nothing about geocaching bothers me! Er, except maybe vacation caches... grrrr...

 

[Pto]

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

<snip>....By maintenance, do you mean the hider should have disabled the cache page sooner, or do you mean the hider has some responsiblity to fix the item/replace the plaque, etc?

 

I mean neither. Re-read what you said and then my answer.

 

You said:

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 ...........

 

I am giving you three prime examples illustrating that maintenance IS an issue and giving you examples of why it is in fact required.

 

OK I think I understand what you mean, but its interesting it took me so long to decipher it....

To answer your new question, I think the cachers should have been responsible and *archived* these caches themselves rather than it getting to the point to where a "should be archived" note was posted and a site admin had to archive the cache.

 

Pto wrote; By maintenance, do you mean the hider should have disabled the cache page sooner

 

I guess *Archived* was the key to my confusion. Sorry.

 

Feel free to post "should be archived" notes on the caches you have linked it hey bother you so much.  That is what that function is there for.

 

It Doesn't Bother Me that Old cache pages sit there for months - I just ignore them each time I look for caches in my area. Its not hard.

 

For the last example, which claimed the find, I never said any harm was done.  I only said it was interesting.

 

I think I understand what you mean, but its interesting it took me so long to decipher it....

 

/end

 

[edit] bad quotage, cant seem to fix, sorry too tired

Edited August 26, 2004 by Pto

[+kayakanimal]

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.

And airports!

 

The other thing is GC.com says virts need a WOW factor. And that is VERY MUCH in the eye of the beholder. So most are just...

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

To answer your new question, I think the cachers should have been responsible and *archived* these caches themselves rather than it getting to the point to where a "should be archived" note was posted and a site admin had to archive the cache.

 

Feel free to post "should be archived" notes on the caches you have linked it hey bother you so much. That is what that function is there for.

Not to derail the thread too much, but Ive done that to caches that have been missing or permanently disabled for a long time. Some have more than one archive note on it. Some of these caches still remain out there. I realize the admins work hard at their volunteer efforts and cant catch everything, but it is frustrating when these things are "ignored". I understand that we dont know what is going on behind the scenes at all and there may be other issues. There are 2 specific caches I have in mind at this moment. If an admin wants to know what 2, they can PM me. I would prefer not to post them otherwise.

[+Alan2]

How does a virtual differ much from a benchmark cache? They both have no log book or swag. There're more similarities between two then between benchmarks and normal caches. In fact, before benchmarks became a separate category, I did a benchmark as a virtual. Virtual Benchmark

[+trippy1976]

I think they should be shaved off into a new section of the site for locationless and virtuals where everything is auto-accepted as a "landmark" or something as long as it's .5 miles from any other virtual.

 

This would prevent people from over-placing virts and would make us all think a little harder about whether this historical marker is really as interesting as the one of a kind stained glass house accross the road.

[+9Key]

And airports!

IMO, airports shouldn't have either physical *or* virtual caches. That just doesn't seem to be a smart idea. There's plenty of less sensitive places to go geocaching.

 

I did a benchmark as a virtual.

That listing was approved almost 3 years ago. It predates the benmark section of this web site.

 

Visit waypoint.org if you like to visit landmarks or submit them for others to "find".

[madratdan]

Like the off topic forum, maybe GC.com should consider making virtuals a premium members only type of cache.

[+kayakanimal]

Like the off topic forum, maybe GC.com should consider making virtuals a premium members only type of cache.

Good idea.

[+mtn-man]

How does a virtual differ much from a benchmark cache? They both have no log book or swag. There're more similarities between two then between benchmarks and normal caches. In fact, before benchmarks became a separate category, I did a benchmark as a virtual. Virtual Benchmark

Actually Alan2, I think your post is a bit misleading. To your credit, I think that cache was more than just any old benchmark. I found it to be quite cool actually. It is a time capsule set to be opened way in the future. It does have highly accurate coordinates as well. Most benchmarks are just the round disc that we see so commonly. Your cache was way beyond the common brass marker disc. I don't think you should sell it so short. I enjoyed the find and the challenge for an out of town person to find the parking spot. When I drove past there this past weekend going to Shea for some TBug photos I thought about that spot (and the Men In Black movie too).

 

Of course, it is also an old cache and is therefore grandfathered in.

 

I think yours was much more than just a benchmark though, which I'm sure is the reason it was approved as a virtual cache. The guidelines were more lax back then, but I'm sure there was no second though about approving that one. Alan2, that one is a pretty good virtual cache.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...d4-9dab9cfb61ec