The Issue With Virtuals

5.7k · January 20, 2005

I am curious as to why there seems to be a bias against promoting virtual caches?

I find them most interesting, educational and enjoyable.

The points regarding cache maintenance of a virtual seem to me for the most part to be a smoke screen. The virtuals that I have visited and seen on the web site do not seem to be things that might 'change' very often thus requiring 'maintenance'. As such, I don't get what is wrong with promoting virtuals that have an obvious liklihood of not 'changing' over time? And when such virtuals do change, isn't that what archving is for?

Thanks, Team cotati697

3.9k · January 20, 2005

You just opened a can of worms. It's ok...and if this gets closed down just use the search button and you will find many threads on Virtuals.

It's a really complicated subject with many different opinions.

El Diablo

9.1k · January 20, 2005

Perhaps once you've wasted 40 minutes looking for a missing piece of virtual verification information on a cache set up by someone from hundreds of miles away, you'll feel differently. From personal experience in 98° heat, I can tell you that this is every bit as frustrating as not finding an unmaintained, muggled physical cache in 98° heat -- maybe even more so, as the virtual cache had a low difficulty rating.

If virtuals are going to "count" as geocaches, then they ought to be subject to maintenance rules just like physical caches. My experience has been that the owner of a virtual cache can easily abandon their cache with nobody ever noticing, since there is no soggy container or full logbook to tip people off to the problem.

If you'd like ten examples of virtual caches whose "permanent" targets have been altered, gone missing, etc., that'd be easy.

I will agree with you this much: a well-done virtual cache can be every bit as fun as a good physical cache. I've found more than 100 virtuals and less than half fit in that category, by my personal definition. Of course, I've done lots of physical caches that weren't all that thrilling, either, but at least I got to hunt for a container and trade a trinket.

Edited January 20, 2005 by The Leprechauns

3.9k · January 20, 2005

See...I told you so!

El Diablo

1k · January 20, 2005

If virtuals are going to "count" as geocaches, then they ought to be subject to maintenance rules just like physical caches. My experience has been that the owner of a virtual cache can easily abandon their cache with nobody ever noticing, since there is no soggy container or full logbook to tip people off to the problem.

G'day

I can only talk from personal experience. I have two virtuals, both within maintaneance range, and one has required maitenance. Had to change the questions as they information sign had been removed. No different to a physical cache!

They are also popular and well liked caches. Why? Because they are great spots which take people to places they may not have been too and they expose them to interesting history.

I am sure there are lame virtuals just as their are lame physical caches ...

To me, if the maintenance requirements are required/enforced/whatever, then the issues are no different from phyisical caches.

Cheers

Andrew

24.7k · January 20, 2005

1) This hobby is about a box in the woods. Even people who defend virtual caches for the most part admit they have more fun with a regular cache.

2) This site has chosen to promote the box over the virtual.

3) Parks will often promote virtuals over traditionals thereby lessinging the amount of fun that would otherwise be had, creating the sites take in #2 above.

That's your reasons as best as I can figure.

January 21, 2005

1) This hobby is about a box in the woods. Even people who defend virtual caches for the most part admit they have more fun with a regular cache.
2) This site has chosen to promote the box over the virtual.

Therefore we would have to get rid of micros, event caches, etc.

This point of "box in the woods" always comes up. No offense to Renegade Knight but, if we don't help the sport/game/hobby evolve then it will die. Not everyone is satisfied with a "box in the woods". Some people want (?) micros. I love virtuals and have found several spots that I would like to make a virtual. I love a good history lesson.

7.3k · January 21, 2005

I like virtuals...I like them a lot. :rolleyes:

9.4k · January 21, 2005

I am curious as to why there seems to be a bias against promoting virtual caches?

Because there is a bias against virtual caches. The whole basis of geocaching is to find a container hidden for someone else to find.

I think soccer, snowboarding and sailing is fun, but I don't expect geocaching.com to build areas to support these activities.

We are actively pursuing a solution to virtual caches that will allow you to continue to enjoy this sister activity, along with locationless caches. But they will be a different animal, and IMO with more appropriate tools to manage them.

January 21, 2005

Nobody has mentioned that there is a history here.

Virts got killed because people abused them. Some people got carried away with making a virt out of anything and everything. Many of these "caches" were really lame. Ditto for locationless and codeword caches (RIP). There were people waypointing ordinary utility poles and other stuff in uninteresting locations and asking for their identification numers. There was the guy who wrote codewords on the underside of toilet seats at rest stops. There is one near me where you get credit for counting the number of windmills that you see while driving down the turnpike. Heck, we could probably start a whole other thread about lame virts that slipped in before the guidelines changes. TPTB decided that this practice was taking the game in a direction that many didn't want it to go and instituted very strict virtual guidelines. I think that it was a tough policy decision for TPTB but probably necessary under the circumstances.

9.1k · January 21, 2005

And yet there is still plenty of room for quality virtuals like the ones you've placed, Quest Master. Funny how it works when you read the cache guidelines, eh?

5.7k · January 21, 2005

If they are 'lame', 'stupid', 'ignorant', 'not unique', 'likely to need maintenance', are telephone pole serial numbers and toilet seats....do not approve them. If they somehow slip thru, archive them. It seems to me that 'qualified' categories of virtuals could be defined. Historic buildings are not likely to require maintenance nor are particularily scenic or historical locales. Monuments that record significant events or persons do not seem to change often either. Yes there are always going to be exceptions such is life. I wonder how many virtuals were approved during 2004? Is there a way that I can search for virtuals based upon their date of placement? Perhaps I have been lucky in my short geocaching 'career' and have found only interesting and stable virtuals. But then I would not find it interesting or educational or informative to count telephone poles or inspect toilet seats.

January 21, 2005

"The whole basis of geocaching is to find a container hidden for someone else to find."

While I personally like virtuals that teach me some history (admittedly a narrow subset of virtuals), I fully understand and agree with TPTB's handling of virtuals in light of Jeremy's statement quoted above and in view of the abuses of the virtuals. I am eagerly awaiting the new rules on virtuals.

January 21, 2005

The reason I went after my first virtual was to get a different little funky icon on my stats page. I must admit that I got hooked. Not only the fact that it was something diferent but that it was something I had passed a million times and I actually was forced to read a historical sign for a change. Now I read em all in passing. These "caches" do serve a purpose and a good one. But! I can agree with not having to count telephone poles and looking for numbers under toilet seats is out. The approval will have to be tight but not so tight as it is now. Theres enough to see and do out there for any number of types of caches to exist. A well maintained cache, lame or awesome, is still a cache.

X

4.8k · January 21, 2005

Nobody has mentioned that there is a history here.

Virts got killed because people abused them. Some people got carried away with making a virt out of anything and everything. Many of these "caches" were really lame. Ditto for locationless and codeword caches (RIP). There were people waypointing ordinary utility poles and other stuff in uninteresting locations and asking for their identification numers. There was the guy who wrote codewords on the underside of toilet seats at rest stops. There is one near me where you get credit for counting the number of windmills that you see while driving down the turnpike. Heck, we could probably start a whole other thread about lame virts that slipped in before the guidelines changes. TPTB decided that this practice was taking the game in a direction that many didn't want it to go and instituted very strict virtual guidelines. I think that it was a tough policy decision for TPTB but probably necessary under the circumstances.

There have been times that I disagreed with, but respected, Questmaster's concerns about caches, so it is nice to agree here. I remember when I first started reading the forums and "lame" virts were the angst de jure. I wasn't particularly concerned because I found ways to avoid them, but I couldn't entirely disagree. I had gone looking for some thinking that I would see a cool thing and found junk. Plus, even the good ones are not the same as a physical log to sign and often I saw ways that a cool cache could be made from them. So I found ways to ignore them unless I read something that told me it would be worth it, I was really curious, or I simply got taken there.

Someone mentioned not approving the "lame" ones. The problem there is that it is a huge judgment call and I personally prefer guidelines that allow for more objectivity over subjectivity. There still is some subjectivity there, but it has been minimized.

Anyway, I think the big thing to keep in mind is that most times there are ways to turn a virtual site into a really cool physical cache. Some of my favorite caches started me at a historical marker, grave site, interesting object etc. and then used information from that to create a puzzle to lead me to a physical cache elsewhere. Sometimes it was simple math from the object. Other times it required converting words to numbers etc. Regardless, I saw something with an interesting history and then used that to go on to find a nice physical container in a nearby park or public area. Those were the caches that I liked. I can only think of one virtual that I actually really really raved about, and another couple that I liked just fine, but were not overly impressed by. But I found a bunch that I was unimpressed by before I learned to ignore them.

In the end, I don't fret much because if I want to avoid certain types of caches, I find a way to do so. But if the site wants to limit virts and encourage physicals, I am not about to complain. That just gives me more cool caches to find from those who put in a little more work to make a cool multi-cache or puzzle cache using a virtual location as a stage!

Edited January 21, 2005 by carleenp

January 21, 2005

I am curious as to why there seems to be a bias against promoting virtual caches?
I find them most interesting, educational and enjoyable.

The points regarding cache maintenance of a virtual seem to me for the most part to be a smoke screen. The virtuals that I have visited and seen on the web site do not seem to be things that might 'change' very often thus requiring 'maintenance'. As such, I don't get what is wrong with promoting virtuals that have an obvious liklihood of not 'changing' over time? And when such virtuals do change, isn't that what archving is for?

Thanks, Team cotati697

I agree! I have tried to get virtuals approved and all I get are a list of excuses about why they aren't possible when there are alternatives that, although aren't virtual, lead to a physical cache.

Why this is, I have no idea, so I've abandoned any hopes of having any really unique places made into virtual caches despite the fact that these places are off-limits for any physical cache container, and there really is no way to place one nearby.

38.2k · January 21, 2005

Let's not forget the part about virtuals threatening traditional geocaching in some areas. When negotiating with land managers about placing geocaches, they would often point to virtuals as an acceptable option. As this became more common it was apparent that traditional geocaches could go the way of the passenger pigeon in some areas.

By taking virtuals off the table, negotiations can now focus on the hiding of real caches.

January 21, 2005

Let's not forget the part about virtuals threatening traditional geocaching in some areas. When negotiating with land managers about placing geocaches, they would often point to virtuals as an acceptable option. As this became more common it was apparent that traditional geocaches could go the way of the passenger pigeon in some areas.

By taking virtuals off the table, negotiations can now focus on the hiding of real caches.

That was the case in point of a cache I wanted to place. It is an 8-acre federally-protected site! My only option was a virtual, and even after explaining this to the approver, it still got dismissed as not being acceptable.

1.2k · January 21, 2005

About Virtuals, it was said:

While I personally like virtuals that teach me some history (admittedly a narrow subset of virtuals), I fully understand and agree with TPTB's handling of virtuals in light of Jeremy's statement quoted above and in view of the abuses of the virtuals.

Those interested in historical matters might consider scanning the benchmark data base provided by Groundspeak. Many of these survey markers are located in historical (or otherwise interesting) places. From Stone Mountain, Georgia, to old markers along the Mason-Dixon line, to historic canals, benchmarks give you the satisfaction of logging a find, while exploring the area. Moreover, there is a certain thrill in being the first to report a station which has not been "recovered" in 50 to 100 years.

I'm including some examples, below. However, these only "scratch the surface". If you have not searched the data base for benchmarks in your area, give it a shot. Who knows what you might uncover?

-Paul-

Daniel Boone's Parents

An 1899 granite post embeded in a city street.

When the train station had a "white" waiting room.

Interview with a college historian.

24.7k · January 21, 2005

1) This hobby is about a box in the woods. Even people who defend virtual caches for the most part admit they have more fun with a regular cache.
2) This site has chosen to promote the box over the virtual.

Therefore we would have to get rid of micros, event caches, etc.

This point of "box in the woods" always comes up. No offense to Renegade Knight but, if we don't help the sport/game/hobby evolve then it will die. Not everyone is satisfied with a "box in the woods". Some people want (?) micros. I love virtuals and have found several spots that I would like to make a virtual. I love a good history lesson.

Trust me, my personal take is closer to what you are saying. I was trying to answer the question from this sites perspective.

January 21, 2005

Ok, lets save some time here...It's Jeremy's site, he doesn't want virtuals listed at this time. Questions? Now if I could just find a dead horse to beat...

January 21, 2005

Ok, lets save some time here...It's Jeremy's site, he doesn't want virtuals listed at this time. Questions? Now if I could just find a dead horse to beat...

Okay, I can agree to that. It is Jeremy's idea and I respect that.

January 21, 2005

Ok, lets save some time here...It's Jeremy's site, he doesn't want virtuals listed at this time. Questions? Now if I could just find a dead horse to beat...

Okay, I can agree to that. It is Jeremy's idea and I respect that.

Don't get me wrong, I also like the ideas of virtuals. I felt slighted at first when my virtual was shot down. But that's just the way things are right now. Waiting for a change.

January 21, 2005

Over time on the forums I have seen less of a bias against virtuals and more of a bias against micro caches. Perhaps this is because virtuals are harder to get approve and micros have no trouble getting approved, good or bad. As for the nature of the game being about finding a box with goodies in it, I would have to disagree with that, as geocaching continues to evolve so do the goals of the players.

January 21, 2005

Over time on the forums I have seen less of a bias against virtuals and more of a bias against micro caches. Perhaps this is because virtuals are harder to get approve and micros have no trouble getting approved, good or bad. As for the nature of the game being about finding a box with goodies in it, I would have to disagree with that, as geocaching continues to evolve so do the goals of the players.

Yes, I have noticed that micros are getting to become annoying to some people, so I've decided to place larger sized caches accordingly just to hopefully create a new trend. Sadly, virtuals aren't being accepted at this time.

2.3k · January 21, 2005

Over time on the forums I have seen less of a bias against virtuals and more of a bias against micro caches. Perhaps this is because virtuals are harder to get approve and micros have no trouble getting approved, good or bad. As for the nature of the game being about finding a box with goodies in it, I would have to disagree with that, as geocaching continues to evolve so do the goals of the players.

Yes, I have noticed that micros are getting to become annoying to some people, so I've decided to place larger sized caches accordingly just to hopefully create a new trend. Sadly, virtuals aren't being accepted at this time.

That is incorrect.

Good virtuals are still being listed. create a good one that meets the guidelines and it will be listed.

January 21, 2005

I was told (when I submitted my virtual) that no virtuals were being approved in

Texas and besides, the tree is only 350 years old !

38.2k · January 21, 2005

Over time on the forums I have seen less of a bias against virtuals and more of a bias against micro caches. Perhaps this is because virtuals are harder to get approve and micros have no trouble getting approved, good or bad. As for the nature of the game being about finding a box with goodies in it, I would have to disagree with that, as geocaching continues to evolve so do the goals of the players.

I think the explosion in lame micros is a direct result of the tightening of the guidelines for virtuals. The lazy cache hider, meaning someone who hides a cache just to say they did and has no interest in maintenance, was attracted to virtuals because they were easy. So they were out there waypointing flagpoles, fence posts and manhole covers (not to mention sneakers in the woods and rotting animal carcasses) and submitting them as virtuals.

When the inevitable crackdown came they turned to putting a slip of paper in a film canister and throwing it in the bushes outside McDonalds.

1.1k · January 21, 2005

Over time on the forums I have seen less of a bias against virtuals and more of a bias against micro caches. Perhaps this is because virtuals are harder to get approve and micros have no trouble getting approved, good or bad. As for the nature of the game being about finding a box with goodies in it, I would have to disagree with that, as geocaching continues to evolve so do the goals of the players.

I think the explosion in lame micros is a direct result of the tightening of the guidelines for virtuals. The lazy cache hider, meaning someone who hides a cache just to say they did and has no interest in maintenance, was attracted to virtuals because they were easy. So they were out there waypointing flagpoles, fence posts and manhole covers (not to mention sneakers in the woods and rotting animal carcasses) and submitting them as virtuals.

When the inevitable crackdown came they turned to putting a slip of paper in a film canister and throwing it in the bushes outside McDonalds.

Well said, Brian. Hours earlier, I typed almost the exact same response as you did, but decided not to post it because I also included references to certain "micro-spew'd" metro areas in my would-have-been response, and I/we have already beaten that dead horse.

So just consider this my "support/I agree with you 100%" response to your post, Brian.

-Dave R. in Biloxi

January 21, 2005

From experience, I would argue that there should be a bias against virtuals -- but not a ban. And there is a place in our geocaching world for micros.

When we placed our first (and, so far, only) cache, my first stab was to make it a virtual.

It is in a small park, easy to get to, but with a curious local history. We intended it to be our

"home" cache. There did not appear to be a lot of hiding places.

The approver said "no" to the virtual. So back to the park we went, and we scouted out a

location where we could hide a micro. Much better. And now, since it is a physical cache, we have a home for the Old Bet TB; her missions end with a return to the home cache. Yes, it is a micro (probably can be reclassified as "small" under the new definition), but sometimes a micro is a reasonable compromise.

So the bias against virtuals made for a better caching experience. (It's stlll an easy one; no walking, good for youngsters.)

However, a ban on virtuals would be overstepping reasonable limits. Urban areas are the obvious case in point. There are a few physical caches in New York City (some are forever being muggled, it appears). But the city has a lot of interesting, off-beat places which can, realistically, be cached only as virtuals. A ban on virtuals would greatly limit caching in many downtown areas.

Having said that, I also agree that virtuals can be lame. There has to be some challenge; getting to the physical location may be easy, but identifying the actual cache "thing" ought to require at least some intellectual activity.

Edited January 21, 2005 by The Old Bet Brigade

1.3k · January 21, 2005

Over time on the forums I have seen less of a bias against virtuals and more of a bias against micro caches. Perhaps this is because virtuals are harder to get approve and micros have no trouble getting approved, good or bad. As for the nature of the game being about finding a box with goodies in it, I would have to disagree with that, as geocaching continues to evolve so do the goals of the players.

I think the explosion in lame micros is a direct result of the tightening of the guidelines for virtuals. The lazy cache hider, meaning someone who hides a cache just to say they did and has no interest in maintenance, was attracted to virtuals because they were easy. So they were out there waypointing flagpoles, fence posts and manhole covers (not to mention sneakers in the woods and rotting animal carcasses) and submitting them as virtuals.

When the inevitable crackdown came they turned to putting a slip of paper in a film canister and throwing it in the bushes outside McDonalds.

Well said, Brian. Hours earlier, I typed almost the exact same response as you did, but decided not to post it because I also included references to certain "micro-spew'd" metro areas in my would-have-been response, and I/we have already beaten that dead horse.

So just consider this my "support/I agree with you 100%" response to your post, Brian.

-Dave R. in Biloxi

Ditto.

I love virtuals. I can't think of one virtual I did that was "lame" but after hearing about some of the other ones I understand the rules being tightened. I just think they were tightened a bit too much.

We definetly have a problem with "throw-away" micros. These are typically the ones that are considered "lame". They're often not maintained. It always gets me when people claim that those that don't like micros don't like them because they can't find them. The "throw-away"/"lame" micros are usually some of the easiest caches to find.

Anyways - I look forward to a "solution" to the virtual "problem".

southdeltan

38.2k · January 21, 2005

I love virtuals. I can't think of one virtual I did that was "lame" but after hearing about some of the other ones I understand the rules being tightened. I just think they were tightened a bit too much.

I don't disagree with you there.

1.6k · January 21, 2005

Nobody has mentioned that there is a history here.

Virts got killed because people abused them. Some people got carried away with making a virt out of anything and everything. Many of these "caches" were really lame. Ditto for locationless and codeword caches (RIP). There were people waypointing ordinary utility poles and other stuff in uninteresting locations and asking for their identification numers. There was the guy who wrote codewords on the underside of toilet seats at rest stops. There is one near me where you get credit for counting the number of windmills that you see while driving down the turnpike. Heck, we could probably start a whole other thread about lame virts that slipped in before the guidelines changes. TPTB decided that this practice was taking the game in a direction that many didn't want it to go and instituted very strict virtual guidelines. I think that it was a tough policy decision for TPTB but probably necessary under the circumstances.

Well put.

Not all virts were bad, some were maintenance issues, but others were not. Some are in neat locations that are often enough off the beaten path to be fun to find and good topics of conversation with non-cachers. Too many were some random roadside historical marker that really had little meaning at the time it was placed, much less today, or were otherwise problematic.

Combine the frequency in which a virt had to have some random piece of data from a historical marker (what is the 3rd word in the 3rd line of the 3rd paragraph?), the frequency of meaningless virts, the rapid increase in this frequency towards the end, the desire to actually go out and find some box in the woods, the better attractiveness of the real game to kids, and the very real worry that the mandarins that run our parks, with little meaningful supervision, would simply decree that virts would be the only caches allowed, and you get some sense of why virts were banned.

The ban was a radical step, but a step that was necessary for the health of the hobby.

2.3k · January 21, 2005

<SNIP>

The ban was a radical step, but a step that was necessary for the health of the hobby.

That is incorrect. There is no ban.

Good virtuals are still being listed. create a good one that meets the guidelines and it will be listed.

January 21, 2005

I'll preface this post by stating that I am neutral on the issue of virtual caches.

Perhaps once you've wasted 40 minutes looking for a missing piece of virtual verification information on a cache set up by someone from hundreds of miles away, you'll feel differently.

Of the 100+ virtual caches I found, I don't recall one ever being missing or in a state of disrepair. I do remember I found one VC a block from where it was supposed to be, and another perhaps 1/4 - 1/2 mile from the coordinates listed. Both of those virtuals had been created by cachers local to those areas.

I would also state that the percentage of "lame" VCs I visited was about the same as the percentage of "lame" physical caches I visited, and that the worst examples from each category were similarly lacking in redeeming qualities.

If virtuals are going to "count" as geocaches, then they ought to be subject to maintenance rules just like physical caches.

I thought they always were/have been subject to the same rules. Have I missed the development and implementation of a cache reverification/mandatory periodic maintenance system?

I think the explosion in lame micros is a direct result of the tightening of the guidelines for virtuals. The lazy cache hider, meaning someone who hides a cache just to say they did and has no interest in maintenance ...
When the inevitable crackdown came they turned to putting a slip of paper in a film canister and throwing it in the bushes outside McDonalds.

That would certainly appear to be at least partially true ... but reviewing the list of VCs I visited, I notice that several of them had actually been physical caches at the time I visited them. I know for fact that two of them were changed to VCs because of issues with local site managers or authorities. But for most of the others, it appears that the designation of the cache was changed from "traditional" to "virtual" simply to avoid performing maintenance. (If I recall correctly, that practice was rather rampant, and led to a further tightening of "the guidelines-that-are-rules."

It has always been easy to avoid doing VCs if one doesn't like them. It is not, however, as easy to avoid the very low quality caches that have, in large part, replaced VCs. Some wonderful caches have dreadful cache pages, but unfortunately, many dreadful caches have wonderful cache pages.

Edited January 21, 2005 by Bassoon Pilot

1.1k · January 21, 2005

It is not, however, as easy to avoid the very low quality caches that have, in large part, replaced VCs. Some wonderful caches have dreadful cache pages, but unfortunately, many dreadful caches have wonderful cache pages.

Incredibly well said!!

-Dave R.

2.7k · January 21, 2005

If I were you I would go to Kentucky and when the last horse crosses the finish line at the derby, get a big stick and beat the hell out of that horse. You will probably have better luck there.

The emphasis is to place real caches as I've found out the over the course of Time. Virtuals will get disapproved faster than you can shake a stick at but they will approve traditional caches on lands that are closed to caching.

As Jeremy said "We are actively pursuing a solution to virtual caches that will allow you to continue to enjoy this sister activity, along with locationless caches. But they will be a different animal, and IMO with more appropriate tools to manage them." And we have heard that for a very long while!

If I were you I would just make the virtual part of a multi, increase the difficulty & terrain level and then put the box in the woods.

1.1k · January 21, 2005

If I were you I would just make the virtual part of a multi, increase the difficulty & terrain level and then put the box in the woods.

That seems to be one of the solutions to this issue that has been implemented since the "virtual crackdown" came into play (in fact, I've placed a few of these myself in place of what would have been virts in the past).

Here are the "problems" with that (quotes intentional there, as some do not view this to be a problem):

(1) Many folks eschew multis (especially if pressed for time) in favor of single-stage caches, so these would-be-virts-but-now-are-multis get skipped where they would not have in the past.

(2) Instead of a "quality" box in the woods (I know, I know, a lot of boxes are lame too, not the point here), a lot of times that final stage becomes what often refer to as a "lame micro" instead. Now granted, it's a lot less "lame" as a consequence of possibly getting to visit a pertinent local landmark, but then the question becomes, "What value did this container really add to the experience?"

(3) In my own personal case, a lot of times when I'm traveling (whether for business or pleasure) I like to go out "virtual caching" after work and/or in the evening. Don't have to change out of my day/work clothes, and can more often do it after dark. Changing these to multis where the "virt" part is used to derive the final stage takes away this previously-enjoyable way to spend an evening and explore an area. (I'm not a big fan of flashlight caching for physical containers, especially in unfamiliar areas (raises too many suspicions from onlookers), but I don't think twice about taking a flashlight to a statue, historical landmark, or other local feature, in order to gather answers to a virt puzzle.)

-Dave R.

9.1k · January 21, 2005

I'll preface this post by stating that I am neutral on the issue of virtual caches.

I'll preface this reply by saying I agree with everything you said, and that I like *good* caches of any type & dislike *bad* caches of any type.

Perhaps once you've wasted 40 minutes looking for a missing piece of virtual verification information on a cache set up by someone from hundreds of miles away, you'll feel differently.

Of the 100+ virtual caches I found, I don't recall one ever being missing or in a state of disrepair. I do remember I found one VC a block from where it was supposed to be, and another perhaps 1/4 - 1/2 mile from the coordinates listed. Both of those virtuals had been created by cachers local to those areas.

My observation there is that a local owner would be in a better position to go back and double-check the coordinates than would be the case for someone who marked a waypoint out the window of their taxi while on vacation.

I would also state that the percentage of "lame" VCs I visited was about the same as the percentage of "lame" physical caches I visited, and that the worst examples from each category were similarly lacking in redeeming qualities.

I agree, "lameness" knows no cache type boundaries. But at least with a physical cache, I at least get some minimal amount of satisfaction from figuring out which park bench it's magneted to, being stealthy, signing the logbook, dropping off a signature item and so forth. For a roadside historic marker, it's read the marker, shrug shoulders, get back in car.

If virtuals are going to "count" as geocaches, then they ought to be subject to maintenance rules just like physical caches.

I thought they always were/have been subject to the same rules. Have I missed the development and implementation of a cache reverification/mandatory periodic maintenance system?

No, you didn't miss anything; virtuals are subject to the maintenance guidelines. I was rebutting the original poster's contention that virtuals aren't likely to need maintenance. I support the guideline on this point. Sorry if I was unclear in my wording.

I think the explosion in lame micros is a direct result of the tightening of the guidelines for virtuals. The lazy cache hider, meaning someone who hides a cache just to say they did and has no interest in maintenance ...
When the inevitable crackdown came they turned to putting a slip of paper in a film canister and throwing it in the bushes outside McDonalds.

That would certainly appear to be at least partially true ... but reviewing the list of VCs I visited, I notice that several of them had actually been physical caches at the time I visited them. I know for fact that two of them were changed to VCs because of issues with local site managers or authorities. But for most of the others, it appears that the designation of the cache was changed from "traditional" to "virtual" simply to avoid performing maintenance. (If I recall correctly, that practice was rather rampant, and led to a further tightening of "the guidelines-that-are-rules."

You do recall correctly; because of this practice, cache owners can no longer change the cache type through editing their cache page. And if you spot a cache that was modified before that programming change, you can report it and it will be taken care of. Same is true for a cache owner who simply declares on their page, "this is now a virtual."

It has always been easy to avoid doing VCs if one doesn't like them. It is not, however, as easy to avoid the very low quality caches that have, in large part, replaced VCs. Some wonderful caches have dreadful cache pages, but unfortunately, many dreadful caches have wonderful cache pages.

Amen to that. In my experience, some of the best hikes up into the mountains or around the lake or across the swamp have very short, matter-of-fact cache pages with lots of spelling errors. Something like, "This will be a tough hike. Bring bug spray. Good luck." Perhaps this is because the hider is more interested in spending time outdoors at cool geocache locations than they are in polishing their grammar and html skills.

January 21, 2005

When on the road in a new area, I generally try to seek out virtuals. They give you a good feel for the history or quirkiness of an area. On top of that, they are usually there and you can hunt them in a suit, as Dave pointed out. I have also found some recently that were obviously placed to get around the de facto ban on virtuals that is enforced in some areas. We nearly gave up on hunting a micro by a historical marker in the middle of nowhere. The highway crew had come threw in the last day or so and clear cut around the marker, thirty minutes later I came up with a micro that had been shot deeper into the woods by the mower, we signed it and then m,ade notes form the marker so we could send the answer to the owner. Was our caching experience enhanced by crawling around looking for the micro, not really. In fact, the micro detracted from what would have been a really cool virt, even though it was at a historical marker. I also agree with Dave, I know we have skipped over some multis and have missed out on cool historical things because of it.

I agree that there have been some exceptionally lame virts approved, I have found som eof them and asked myself, "How did this ever get approved in the first place?" But that is a reviewer and placer issue. I have never subscribed to the point of view that just because there might be some bad ones we should do away with them entirely, or make them so hard to get as to create an effective ban.

January 22, 2005

Ok, lets save some time here...It's Jeremy's site, he doesn't want virtuals listed at this time. Questions? Now if I could just find a dead horse to beat...

With all due respect, and I don't know this for a fact, but I do think Jeremy is reasonable enough to know that we pay for this site. Every member that pays keeps those servers running. I like to think that if not the site but the game belongs to all of us. Not a personal attack but I can't stand hearing Jeremy this and Jeremy that. He just seems a bit more reasonable to me than that. I believe that further up the topic here that he is trying to make some sort of compromise on this issue. And it seems you were kidding anyway so forgive my rant.

X :anibad:

January 22, 2005

Some people got carried away with making a virt out of anything and everything.

I recently went to a virt up in the hills. No idea what it was until I got there. It was the fur and bones of some large dead animal. Not exactly my favorite virtual of all time.

Thought it was pretty tasteless to be honest.

:laughing:

5.7k · January 23, 2005

Some people got carried away with making a virt out of anything and everything.

I recently went to a virt up in the hills. No idea what it was until I got there. It was the fur and bones of some large dead animal. Not exactly my favorite virtual of all time.

Thought it was pretty tasteless to be honest.

God help you if someone put that crap in a large plastic container and covered it with some leaves and branches.

You know, it occurs to me that for about the past 10 or 12 years in this country that when more than two people try to discuss a topic that might require re-thinking of previously held notions, things quickly decay into extremes.

I believe that you could draw the inference from this topic that it is not possible to have rational 'placement' of virtual caches without at the same time having these so-called "lame" caches of telephone pole serial numbers, 'secret' codes on the underside of toilet seats and dead freaking animal remains in the mix. I'll tell you, I just do not accept such notions, period.

Get rid of the trash. Encourage the types of virtuals that I and a couple of others in here have somehow miraculously been able to find. Strangeness prevails.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Team cotati697

January 23, 2005

Over time on the forums I have seen less of a bias against virtuals and more of a bias against micro caches. Perhaps this is because virtuals are harder to get approve and micros have no trouble getting approved, good or bad. As for the nature of the game being about finding a box with goodies in it, I would have to disagree with that, as geocaching continues to evolve so do the goals of the players.

I, for one, happen to like micros <_<

5.7k · January 23, 2005

I like micros too. This has exactly what to do with the topic at hand?

January 23, 2005

I like micros too. This has exactly what to do with the topic at hand?

nothing at all, just where it seemed to go <_< . On subject, I have only found one VC and I liked the context AND learned something new about a place I have lived for 20 years.

Edited January 23, 2005 by MT CatRancher

5.7k · January 23, 2005

Thank you. My point exactly.

38.2k · January 23, 2005

I believe that you could draw the inference from this topic that it is not possible to have rational 'placement' of virtual caches without at the same time having these so-called "lame" caches of telephone pole serial numbers, 'secret' codes on the underside of toilet seats and dead freaking animal remains in the mix.

Though these actually were an issue because they did happen (and flagpoles and manhole covers and every roadside marker no matter how mundane), we can put them aside if you prefer.

How then do we address the issue of walking into a park office to dicuss placing geocaches and hearing the guy say, "Ah see you have these here vir-to-ewl caches where you don't leave no box in the woods. "We'll let y'all do that". This was increasingly becoming and issue to the point where traditional geocaching was being threatened in some regions.

Edited January 23, 2005 by briansnat

2.1k · January 23, 2005

How then do we address the issue of walking into a park office to dicuss placing geocaches and hearing the guy say, "Ah see you have these here vir-to-ewl caches where you don't leave no box in the woods. "We'll let y'all do that". This was increasingly becoming and issue to the point where traditional geocaching was being threatened in some regions.

I'm sorry, sir, but there is nothing that meets even the loosest virtual cache definition 2 miles back on trail #9 where I think people should visit, help clean the park, and enjoy the outdoors. I do know that my highly non-intrusive ammo box will fit all of my needs and your's though and has worked in over 100,000 other cases. I hope we can reach a common ground on this. I'd hate for the thousands of local and visiting geocachers to avoid your park and not participate in keeping up with its maintenance because you aren't willing to let me place and maintain this small box amongst the acres of beautiful land here.

(add more butt-kissing as seems necessary)

Point being that many people have opened doors to parks that weren't even interested in virtual geocaches simply by selling the activity to the managing bodies. Cooperation on rules that even exceed GC.com (like X many caches per park and time limits on their placement) and well-organized selling points would solve the problem of virtuals "replacing" geocaches in people's minds.

7.2k · January 23, 2005

As such, I don't get what is wrong with promoting virtuals that have an obvious liklihood of not 'changing' over time?

The maintenance issue is for vacation caches which I support in part. The real reasons for the suppression of virts have already been outlined, except one that has been missed.

A virt can block a physical. Someone might place a virt in a cool little park thinking there is no way a physical cache could be placed. Another player might come along and can see a regular cache could easily be placed. So, now you have a spot where only half the game is played.

Sure, you could ask the virt owner to archive the cache, but what if they are absentee? What if they don't want to cooperate? You're stuck.

Way back when I argued that a virt shouldn't block a physical cache going in, but a physical could block a virt. It apparently fell on deaf ears and virt standards were tightened.

As far as the issue of so-called "vacation caches" I do support the restriction in part.

A recent incident has cemented my opinion of if an area already has an active caching population then vacation caches shouldn't be allowed--especially high maintenance ones. OTOH, remote places like wilderness areas where there is little cache activity then I'd be more inclined to accept it because of fewer visitors and thus fewer maintenance issues. (I don't subscribe to the "Your cache has not been logged in the while, could you go out and make sure it is still there before I hunt it?" mentality.) I don't support a person going to another area with an established caching population and placing a cache. While, at the same time, I do support being able to introduce caching to another area where there is no caching activity.

I do look forward to when virts are placed in their own area. I might start loking for locationless caches again. I welcome the opportunity to waypoint some really cool places that one might not want to make a physical.

The Issue With Virtuals

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