Jump to content

The Issue With Virtuals


Team Cotati

Recommended Posts

[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.

OK, try this on for size, I tried to create a virtual at the worlds largest concrete railroad bridge, The bridge was completed in 1915, there are multiple historical markers on one of the bridge peirs.

I spent quite a bit of time trying to find a place to put a container, but ran into the following problems.

1. The town denied use of public property for hiding a geocache three times.

2. My request to hide a conatiner on the private properrty in the area was turned down by the homeowners

3. The remaining property in sight of the bridge is either railroad property, and therefore off limits or extremely steep or in the cacse of a small "island" in the creek, has quite a bit of quicksand in the area.

The reason for the cache is the bridge itself, I've taken several people to see it and there is a definate "WOW" factor, the bridge dwarfs 2 story frame buildings that are next to it

 

This cache was turned down by two seperate reviwers, one of whom told me to place a micro there even after I had explained the reasons why that was impossible.

A "traditional" cache has been placed in the area, within feet of one of the spots that I had selected as possible sites for a cache, but was told was "off limits". According to the town, that site is still off limits.

Link to comment

Mt 2 cents on Micros. Yes, some are "lame", but so are some regular caches, virtuals and locationless caches. Micros do have a place in the sport. I recently hid a multi that was nothing but micros. It's in the city where an ammo can would just be too big to hide. It's also reasonably accessable for someone who is handicapped ( they will need help with stage one). Also most of the "thruway rest stop" caches that I've seen are micros. There's not many places to hide a regular, and it does break up the trip.

Link to comment
The two issues are intertwined because the restrictions on one type (virtual caches) were directly led to the proliferation of the other (microcaches.) Actually, cache quality (or the lack thereof) is the tangental issue.

The topic brought back from the dead, eh?

 

No they aren't. The only way they could be intertwined is if you're supporting a lame virtual with a lame micro.

 

Cache quality may be the tangental issue, but tangental is another word for "off topic."

Link to comment

I am new at this. I submitted a virtual that was also a multi. It was, essentially, a spy thriller, where each find led to the next through e-mailing clues based on what was found at each location. There was physical stuff to find at each site. And I don't think it was particularly lame at all.

 

In fact, I think it made for an interesting game.

 

All sites are in my home city, so I can "maintain" them. And I think the concept was fairly unique. I spent a lot of time on this....finding the spots, researching clues, and writing the text.

 

I've resubmitted the idea to the reviewer along with my actual written notes that go out after each set of clues is submitted.

 

I understand where the concerns are, but don't understand why a concept like this would be shot down. No, there's no cannister or logbook. But, it does send people to various locations, require some puzzle solving, and is couched in a fictional thriller concept.

 

What am I missing here?

Edited by Lawcomic
Link to comment
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 really have to agree. Besides, many "boxes" in the woods are really lame micros with soaked and full logs, that aren't any better than logging a telephone poll.

Link to comment
The two issues are intertwined because the restrictions on one type (virtual caches) were directly led to the proliferation of the other (microcaches.)  Actually, cache quality (or the lack thereof) is the tangental issue.

The topic brought back from the dead, eh?

 

No they aren't. The only way they could be intertwined is if you're supporting a lame virtual with a lame micro.

 

Cache quality may be the tangental issue, but tangental is another word for "off topic."

A lame virtual is as bad as a lame micro, and visa versa. there are many great virtuals better than most micros. These just have to be carefully screened by approvers. Really Jeremy, wouldn't you rather be taken to a marvelous historic building you never knew was there and requested to read a historical marker, giving you new knowledge, than taken out to the woods and forced to dig through the dirt until you finally find a little metal can with a wet piece of paper inside? Obviously outright banning one type doesn't seem the answer.

 

the issue is cache quality

 

we need a rating system

 

I'd love to vote 1 to 5 stars, just like on netflix.

Link to comment
I understand where the concerns are, but don't understand why a concept like this would be shot down. No, there's no cannister or logbook. But, it does send people to various locations, require some puzzle solving, and is couched in a fictional thriller concept.

 

What am I missing here?

The container and the logbook are what you are missing.

Link to comment

I guess I just don't get why that's a problem. If the hunt is interesting and well maintained, why would it matter if there's a container?

 

I'm just not getting why a well thought out hunt with interesting clues is of less value than a film cannister with a folded up piece of paper in it. Both can be fun to find.

Link to comment
I guess I just don't get why that's a problem. If the hunt is interesting and well maintained, why would it matter if there's a container?

 

I'm just not getting why a well thought out hunt with interesting clues is of less value than a film cannister with a folded up piece of paper in it. Both can be fun to find.

Main Entry: cache

Pronunciation: 'kash

Function: noun

1 a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements b : a secure place of storage

2 : something hidden or stored in a cache

Link to comment
In fact, I think it made for an interesting game.

I submitted a virtual for approval not knowing about the moratorium on virtuals. I have now changed it up to where the virtual stop is now a part of a multi with a micro hidden away from the site. Mine hasn't been approved yet, but now with a micro and a log I hope it will.

 

For your cache have people add up dates or make those date correspond with the coords of the next step and hide a micro somewhere nearby or miles away whatever the case may be. Since it is a spy cache make them solve spy puzzles/codewords whatever. :lostsignal:

Link to comment

Let me ask this....If it was a multi-cache with all virtual stops, except for the final location which contained a traditional, would that meet resistance?

 

The way I set it up was that each virtual stop contained clues at the location...of a permanent nature...not something like a note written on a wall. After the cacher finds the clue, they would e-mail me, and I give them the next chapter...which leads to the next site, where more clues have to be figured out.

 

If I did this, but added a final spot with a traditional cache, would that likely be approved (assuming the final cache met guidelines).

Link to comment

Yes. I'm working on a similar one, except they do not need to email me for the next stage. All of the stages are virtuals except for the final container location. It will be found by solving a simple math puzzle using the info gathered at the intermediate stages.

You may want to rethink the requirement to get a reply email to go on to the next stage. Sometimes it's nice to complete a multi stage cache all in one shot. At the very least-make sure that aspect is crystal clear on the cache page, and don't be surprised if it doesn't get a lot of play due to the time committment you seem to be requiring. But go for it-new twists are usually welcome to the game.

Link to comment
Let me ask this....If it was a multi-cache with all virtual stops, except for the final location which contained a traditional, would that meet resistance?

 

No. That is exactly what TPTB are trying to get people to do. Use items that previously would have been a virtual to either point to a real cache, or to place one nearby.

 

Many people now use something on plaques, statues, etc... to provide coordinates to a real cache that is usually hidden nearby. For instance I have a cache in an historic park and had I put together the cache before the tightening of the rules on virtuals, I would have been listed as a virtual and I would have asked for the date at the base of the cannon in the park for verification. Now, instead I use the date to help provide coordinates for a real cache that is .1 mile away.

 

Its actually a great way to design a multi because the middle stages are less likely to go missing.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Let me ask this....If it was a multi-cache with all virtual stops, except for the final location which contained a traditional, would that meet resistance?

 

The way I set it up was that each virtual stop contained clues at the location...of a permanent nature...not something like a note written on a wall.  After the cacher finds the clue, they would e-mail me, and I give them the next chapter...which leads to the next site, where more clues have to be figured out.

 

This would work quite well except for the emailing part. I would encourage you not to have people email you for each step. This limits finders to your area. A person travelling through won't be able to email you and wait for your response on each step. Use the virtual clues to get coordinates to the next virtual clue and so on until the final virtual clue leads the cacher to the hidden cache.

Link to comment

I have to agree with the moose.

 

Personally, I wouldn't do your cache even if it was in my area. It would simply be too onerous.

 

I have done a number of puzzle/multis that were close in concept to what you are suggesting, however.

 

The way I see it, you are going to have to have a log book at the end or this one is not going to be approved.

 

I think ythat it would likely be a very cool cache if you either used clues found at a location to compute the next and final steps. If this wasn't possible, I would hide micros with the info. Clever micro hides would aid to your 'secret agent' theme.

 

Off topic: Nice new avatar, Bruce.

Link to comment
Really Jeremy, wouldn't you rather be taken to a marvelous historic building you never knew was there and requested to read a historical marker, giving you new knowledge, than taken out to the woods and forced to dig through the dirt until you finally find a little metal can with a wet piece of paper inside?

That's like comparing a cool glass of water to a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, so here's a better question. Would you prefer to be taken to a marvelous historical building that you never knew was there, or taken to a marvelous historical building and based on some clever question get the coordinates to a well placed container in a local park? I'd pick the latter.

Link to comment
Would you prefer to be taken to a marvelous historical building that you never knew was there, or taken to a marvelous historical building and based on some clever question get the coordinates to a well placed container in a local park? I'd pick the latter.

That depends a lot on the situation.

 

I would pick the former in many cases.

 

Take for example the case where the place to which the cache leads is connected to a sad piece of history or is a religious place etc

I would neither wish to search for a micro cache in the vicinity of such an area nor would I like to search for a cache not connected at all to the topic and at some greater distance.

 

Another example are many caches in urban areas. I neither appreciate having to search for micro caches in areas with many muggles, lots of garbage, dog s*** etc nor to having to travel a long distance to a place at the outskirts of a city just to look for a cache container there which is the final stage of a cache which would be better off as virtual one. For people who have to rely on public transportation or for tourists with a limited time budget, such caches are typically rather annoying. Moreover, the overall mileage spent for geocaching increases due to such caches which is a big drawback from my point of view, in particular in urban areas with a level of air pollution.

 

If there exist nice hideouts in the vicinity of the historical building and these hideouts also fit to the manner the cache is set up, hardly anyone would prefer a virtual cache. In the remaining cases, I prefer a virtual cache by far.

Link to comment
If there exist nice hideouts in the vicinity of the historical building and these hideouts also fit to the manner the cache is set up, hardly anyone would prefer a virtual cache. In the remaining cases, I prefer a virtual cache by far.

I don't get the point you're making. It seems like every defense I see is that the lame micro somehow diminishes the impact of an excellent virtual. Well to me it seems like the lame micro is the problem. If the user doesn't want to put any thought into creating a good micro, maybe someone else can come along and do it right.

 

What you do say is that you wouldn't be bothered with going after the final container either because you have no transportation (stretch) or it diminishes the impact of the virtual. Well, honestly, if the virtual is so mind bendingly fantastic you don't have to go after the final location. (Which, by the way, mind bendingly fantastic fits under the "wow" factor requirement of virtuals). But the cache "placer" should place a final location whether it be a micro or a traditional sized cache.

Link to comment
Well to me it seems like the lame micro is the problem. If the user doesn't want to put any thought into creating a good micro, maybe someone else can come along and do it right.

 

I was not specifically referring to lame micros. What is right for one cacher, might be totally wrong for another cacher. For some cachers places like the walls of a church are good hiding places, other cachers feel annoyed by such hideouts. There are many more examples of this type.

 

You asked a question in your posting to which I responded. The point that I was trying to make was that I often prefer a virtual cache to a cache with a container that only has a container because of the many restrictions for virtuals. A good virtual cache does not become better for me if it is turned into a cache with a container that is either placed far apart or at a place where I do not wish to hunt for caches. On the contrary, I feel that the quality deteriorates as a result of a forced placement of a container.

 

What you do say is that you wouldn't be bothered with going after the final container either because you have no transportation (stretch)

 

It is not as easy as that. It also a question of polluting the air by unnecessary travels which are encouraged by caches of this type. For many cachers, part of their fun comes from being able to log caches as found. Hence some of them would go for the final just in order to be able to claim a find.

 

Moreover, if tourists read in the logs of a cache that they need a long time for completing a cache, they will typically refrain from even starting such caches.

A good example of a cache that would be much more tourist-friendly as a virtual cache is "Fantastic Beasts" in Vienna (this cache was conceived as virtual, but there was no chance to get it approved). It is still a very nice cache, but it is very hard to complete for tourists although it would be of particular interest to this group.

 

 

or it diminishes the impact of the virtual.

 

I did not mention this aspect. My point was a different one. I stated that there exist topics where I do not feel it appropriate to combine them with the hunt for a cache box. A virtual cache, however, also offers the possibility to create a cache just for teaching the visitors something they have not been aware of before. There exist many more areas of interest than just geology (that is covered by Earth caches, and there exist many more reasons why a cache placement might not a be good idea at a certain place than the restrictions by land managers (this is an important issue in the US - but of only minor relevance in many other regions of the world).

 

But the cache "placer" should place a final location whether it be a micro or a traditional sized cache.

 

Why? He/she should have the chance to do so if he/she wishes to do so, but there should be no such requirement. The ultimate goal should be to maximize the quality of the listed caches, not the number of cache containers.

The hiders who prefer to hide a container, will do so anyway - regardless of the rules for placing virtuals. The fact that many virtuals are lame, is not a valid argument for

excluding high quality virtual caches.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
It also a question of polluting the air by unnecessary travels which are encouraged by caches of this type.

You should probably give up geocaching totally if you feel this way.

You don't *have* to go geocaching. All you get is a smiley and personal satifaction.

 

Moreover, if tourists read in the logs of a cache that they need a long time for completing a cache, they will typically refrain from even starting such caches.

Yet, sometimes other do seek these long, hard caches out. This cache is a virtual cache that probably would not have been approved today as is because it would be easy to put a regular cache there. Even still, several people met on vacation and spent most of the day on a grueling, steep 4 mile hike in the desert where there were no trails just to do one cache. We did more hiking the next day to caches. It would have been easy to do all the easy caches in town on the strip (which we did some at night), but we wanted the more difficult and scenic caches that required more work. Just because you only want easy drive-by virtual caches doesn't mean that others might not enjoy a tougher cache and might plan an for weeks or months to spend an entire day just to do one cache.

 

The fact that many virtuals are lame, is not a valid argument for excluding high quality virtual caches.

High quality virtual caches are not excluded, as I have said above.

Link to comment
It also a question of polluting the air by unnecessary travels which are encouraged by caches of this type.

You should probably give up geocaching totally if you feel this way.

You don't *have* to go geocaching. All you get is a smiley and personal satifaction.

 

I was not talking about myself. Moreover, I was referring to artificial travels that are just caused by extra requirements and are not welcomed by the placer of the cache.

 

 

Yet, sometimes other do seek these long, hard caches out. 

 

Probably you should have had a look at the cache I mentioned. The hard part of that cache is in any case the virtual part where you have to visit 13 stages where some of them are not trivial at all and then you have to assemble an anagram (again not easy!). Stage number 15 which leads to a less urban place than the other ones is only a forced stage because the virtual cache idea was not approved - it does not make the cache harder or more interesting. It is one of the best caches outside of mountain regions I have ever done, but in my opinion, it would be even better without the last stage.

(BTW: I am not living in Vienna, and did the cache nevertheless. )

 

This cache is a virtual cache that probably would not have been approved today as is because it would be easy to put a regular cache there. 

 

Exactly. Do you feel that it is good idea to abolish all such caches?

 

It would have been easy to do all the easy caches in town on the strip (which we did some at night), but we wanted the more difficult and scenic caches that required more work. 

 

I did already a cache with a hike of more than 25 kilometers (more than 15.5 miles) just for a single cache and enjoyed it enormously . A hike of 4 miles (one way) is nothing extraordinary for me - it is more or less my preferred walking distance for a hiking cache (my favourite category).

There is, however, a big difference between walking a long distance in the forest, on a mountain trail, in the desert or in a city. In my point of view, covering larger distances inside a city does not make much sense.

 

Just because you only want easy drive-by virtual caches doesn't mean that others might not enjoy a tougher cache and might plan an for weeks or months to spend an entire day just to do one cache.

 

It is quite interesting what you seem to know about my caching preferences. You are completely wrong, however. I hate drive-by caches, regardless of whether they are virtual ones or physical ones. I typically just do one cache per caching tour. There are some exceptions when I am abroad, but I am never interested into a high number of finds per day.

 

I like tough caches (also most of the caches I have hidden are not quick, easy caches), but I do not like physical caches that are better off as virtual ones. It is as simple as that.

 

High quality virtual caches are not excluded, as I have said above.

 

Nowadays there are almost excluded as there exists a possbility to hide a container in the vicinity (a circle with radius of say 10 kilometers) of nearly every place in know in my home country. The question is not whether a cache container can be placed there, but whether the quality of the cache profits from such a placement. My point is that this is often not the case.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
This cache is a virtual cache that probably would not have been approved today as is because it would be easy to put a regular cache there. 

Exactly. Do you feel that it is good idea to abolish all such caches?

As one of the cachers that was there with mtn-man, I'd like to comment here. While the hike and the location were awesome, and the wreckage was neat, it would have been so much better if there was a box of goodies to find and a logbook to sign.

 

It's interesting in that its been over 9 months since we were there and no one else has gone there. I guarantee that would not be the case if there was a box to find.

Link to comment

I had a virtual that was rejected even though it fit all the guidelines on GC. I was later told by an approver that the decision was "proven correct" because another cacher placed a cache nearby.

The problem with that is that the other cacher placed the cache in a spot that is, to this day, off limits as far as placing a cache.

I followed the guidelines, asked for permission from the town and was denied, I even had friends who live in the town ask, and they were denied. The cache that is placed WITHOUT permission, in an OFF LIMITS area, is "OK", mine is not.

Interesting.........

Link to comment

Who would feel robbed if there were no virtual geocaches, or never were?

 

When you look at user stats, do you weigh anything on the percentage of virtuals logged? i.e. if you saw someone's stats and saw only virtuals logged, would you consider them a 'true' geocacher?

 

I am brand new to this, and I can already attest that clearing virtuals off my list of closest doesn't feel the same as finding hidden containers.

Link to comment

Gixxer - I think virtuals carry just as much respect as finding a can. They can be difficult to find and are often more worthwhile than a bison can.

 

Jeremy and the rest, I guess there is just a disagreement about what kind of cache is better. I don't know why we need to limit the sport, rather than letting it evolve in a structured and appropriate way. If people want tasteful virtuals, why stand in the way? Just so they aren't stupid. I'd also like to not see so many "micros in a guardrail" approved.

Link to comment

Gixxer, to answer your first question, I for one, would feel robbed. I have done a few virtuals that I have really enjoyed and have learned a lot from. It's not always just about finding a film canister or an altoids tin or an ammo can. There is a lot of room in this hobby for all kinds of caches, and no one forces any one to do any kind of cache they don't want to do.

 

As far as your question about considering someone a "real" geocacher, well, if it's an approved cache, and they find it, then they are a real geocacher.

 

Again, as it's been pointed out, GC is working on a place for virtuals...based on that, and at least as far as this site goes, that makes them a legitimate subset of the hobby.

Link to comment

Yet, sometimes other do seek these long, hard caches out. 

 

Probably you should have had a look at the cache I mentioned. The hard part of that cache is in any case the virtual part where you have to visit 13 stages where some of them are not trivial at all and then you have to assemble an anagram (again not easy!). Stage number 15 which leads to a less urban place than the other ones is only a forced stage because the virtual cache idea was not approved - it does not make the cache harder or more interesting. It is one of the best caches outside of mountain regions I have ever done, but in my opinion, it would be even better without the last stage.

I did look at that cache. I do think it is interesting that you said in one of your logs, "Although I had planned to visit all stages anyway, I tried to find out some of the letters already from home." Also, "At home I was hoping that there would be a sign at the spot containing the English word, but this was not the case." Then there was this, "This has been one of the stages where all informations I had found some weeks ago via the internet, turned out to be wrong." Sounds like you were working pretty hard to avoid going to all those places.

 

As Jeremy says, the final stage is only as good as the hider makes it. If you feel the last stage of that cache was not that good, I would not think that is the site's fault.

 

I like to find the container. I think most people do. I purchased a stamp so I could give a personal touch to logs I put in the logbook. I carry stickers to put on the inside of the cache so others that find the cache will know I have been there by my trademark. Lots of others do stuff like that too. I can't stick my stickers on a statue and I cannot stamp a headstone. I don't think kids are really impressed with brass plaques riveted to concrete with no goodies to trade.

 

The good thing is that the site is "actively pursuing a solution to virtual caches that will allow you to continue to enjoy this sister activity, along with locationless caches."

Link to comment

I like to find the container.  I think most people do.

 

Keep thinking that, meanwhile other sites like terracaching.com grow by 8 new members a day and the number of virtual caches grows by about 3 per day. Must be that the group not encompassed by your 'most people' is pretty large.

 

The good thing is that the site is "actively pursuing a solution to virtual caches that will allow you to continue to enjoy this sister activity, along with locationless caches."

 

This site has been 'actively pursuing' this for I don't know how long now. At least a year or more.

 

Personally I am not into virts at all. I could care less if this site ever lists them as I am not inclined to pursue them. Please though, don't patronize with your ignorant 'most people' comments that you couldn't possibly know about. Also, avoid saying that this site is actively working on incorporating them when it has been well over a year with no visible progress.

 

I am sure it will appear I am being rude, but that isn't my intent. I just get sick of the mantra repeated over and over "Nobody really likes them" followed with "we are working day and night to incorporate them".

 

Neither appear to be true and they are contradictory.

Link to comment
We are actively pursuing a solution to virtual caches that will allow you to continue to enjoy this sister activity, along with locationless caches.

Off subject, but it's nice to hear "locationless caches" have not died completely. We vacation in a 40' rig which frequently makes caching a bit more cumbersome without unhooking our tow vehicle. Having locationless caches in mind while driving keeps us playing the game, at least mentally, at all times. :laughing:

Link to comment

I did look at that cache.  I do think it is interesting that you said in one of your logs, "Although I had planned to visit all stages anyway, I tried to find out some of the letters already from home."  Also, "At home I was hoping that there would be a sign at the spot containing the English word, but this was not the case."  Then there was this, "This has been one of the stages where all informations I had found some weeks ago via the internet, turned out to be wrong."  Sounds like you were working pretty hard to avoid going to all those places.

 

Again you are wrong. I do not like caches where the stages can be found out in advance from home - I often take it as challenge to check whether I manage to find them out in advance. Regardless of whether I was successful or not, I pay a visit to the stages. If it is possible to find out the stages from home, I typically regard this as weakness of the cache under consideration. In the case of the cache I referred to, one has no chance to be successful. This is one of the many assets of the cache.

 

As Jeremy says, the final stage is only as good as the hider makes it.  If you feel the last stage of that cache was not that good, I would not think that is the site's fault. 

 

Wrong assumption on your side - the location of the final stage is nice and the hideout is well chosen (the hider is one of the top ten cachers of Austria in my personal list regarding the quality of all placed caches). It was also no problem for me to do the cache in two rounds because I visit Vienna several times a year. I am not regarding myself as tourist. I was talking about the suitability of the cache for tourists. If the cache could have been a virtual (as planned by the owner), it would not only attract the cachers that live in Vienna or visit Vienna frequently, but also one-time visitors who could profit from a very charming and attractive tour through some very nice spots of Vienna that are mostly not part of a typical city tour with a guide.

 

I am not responding to the main part of the rest of your posting since there well-known arguments pro and co virtual caches are listed. It is matter of taste whether or not finding a container is important to someone. (I do not care at all about trading and hate for example having to log virtual caches that are film containers if they filled with many trading items.) As I mentioned above, I accept the rules of this site - it is up to them to decide which caches they wish to list. My point was only that it is not true that a container makes a good virtual cache better - that depends on the situation and on the preferences of the individual cachers.

 

The good thing is that the site is "actively pursuing a solution to virtual caches that will allow you to continue to enjoy this sister activity, along with locationless caches."

 

Personally, I am not interested at all in locationless caches. If the virtual caches are put onto a separate site, I am quite sure that I would not visit that place often - I am not interested into a large number of bad quality virtual caches, but only into those where a virtual really makes sense from my point of view. There are not so many places in my country (the situation differs from region to region!) where these conditions are met - their number does not warrant the extra effort to visit a separate site (that's of course just my personal point of view).

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
Just because you only want easy drive-by virtual caches doesn't mean that others might not enjoy a tougher cache and might plan an for weeks or months to spend an entire day just to do one cache.

From the forum guidelines:

 

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

Link to comment
Gixxer - I think virtuals carry just as much respect as finding a can. They can be difficult to find and are often more worthwhile than a bison can.

Well, so far the ones I have encountered here in Northern Utah have been nothing more than driving up to a sign and finding an answer

Seems more suited to a high school history treasure hunt than the concept of geocaching that was introduced to me.

 

And do the originators of virtual caches have any part in actually PLACING the "cache" (sign)?

 

I see some other virtuals, such as going to Delicate Arch in Arches National Park, and having your picture taken with your GPS visible in the picture. LOL People seem really eager to have credit for "hides", when they haven't hidden or placed anything. I have hiked to Delicate Arch numerous times. Why? Because it is an attraction, independent of geocaching, or someone trying to take credit for it being there. If Nat Parks allowed real caches, great, I would love to detour along the trek and seek out a cache.

In the end, it seems to really be all about numbers, and I am guilty too, for logging them, even if it is just to clear them off my lists and maps.

Link to comment
Is there an "appeals process" for virtual caches that are shot down?

 

I'd at least like to make my case to the powers that be.

The appeals process is spelled out in the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines document that you read before submitting your cache. The current text of the guidelines has the following advice about appeals:

 

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache. If you have a novel type of cache that “pushes the envelope” to some degree, then it is best to contact your local reviewer and/or Geocaching.com before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site. The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and reviewers are always interested in new ideas. If, after exchanging emails with the reviewer, you still feel your cache has been misjudged, your next option is to ask the volunteer to post the cache for all of the reviewers to see in their private discussion forum. Sometimes a second opinion from someone else who has seen a similar situation can help in suggesting a way for the cache to be listed. Next, you should feel free to post a message in the “Geocaching Topics” section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be posted, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the listing and your cache may be unarchived. Finally, if you believe that the reviewer has acted inappropriately, you may send an e-mail with complete details, waypoint name (GC****) and links to the cache, to Groundspeak’s special address for this purpose: appeals@geocaching.com.

 

You can write back to the reviewer and ask for your cache to be posted in the reviewers' forum. You're already discussing it in the forums. In fact, perhaps your cache idea deserves its own thread. I'd be happy to split your discussion out to separate it from the larger topic. Send me a message if you'd like me to do this.

 

I would not be optimistic about the chances for success on appeal. There has to be someplace near the stages of your spy story where a physical cache could be placed.

Link to comment

Well, so far the ones I have encountered here in Northern Utah have been nothing more than driving up to a sign and finding an answer

Seems more suited to a high school history treasure hunt than the concept of geocaching that was introduced to me.

May I ask you to briefly explain what's at the heart of the concept of geocaching as it has been explained to you? Is the main focus for you to run around with a GPS device and to find a container regardless of the way to the container and whether or not the hunt leads you to a nice and interesting place?

 

For me the concept of geocaching is about the way to the cache and the adventures during the hunt, not about the container at the end. I do not mind if there is a container there if the place is suitable, but the container is not important for me.

 

I regard virtuals that lead me only to a statue as boring, but drive by physical caches are even more boring for me.

 

Have a look for example at a virtual cache like this one

http://www.navicache.com/cgi-bin/db/displa...pl?CacheID=4988

(it has been denied at gc.com - so I have to refer to an alternative site).

 

Do you really believe that someone would visit/hide this cache just to increase his number of found/hidden caches? The reward for finding such a cache (which requires a combination of suitable weather and a high level of fitness and experience) is the adventure during the hunt, not some sort of container.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
May I ask you to briefly explain what's at the heart of the concept of geocaching as it has been explained to you?

it was very simple; "people hide stuff up in the hills, and you use the GPS to go find it"

 

that sounded pretty fun

So when I bought a GPS to have for hiking and backpacking, I decided to try out this geocaching stuff to learn how to use the GPS.

I came to this site, loaded some single cache entries, loaded the coords manually into the GPS, and we went "up in the hills" and found some caches. We liked that.

Within a couple weeks of that, I had the knowledge from this forum to load caches straight to the GPS, and had lists, and maps, and software. Then I went about finding all the caches near my home. I soon discovered Virtuals.........and to be honest, my gut response was "WTF?". So I do them, but it is about clearing them off my list of caches in my area.

I know 'to each their own'.

I am simply sharing my honest feelings about the experience.

If they continue, no big deal, I will keep clearing them off with finds and emails.

If they are eliminated, no big deal, but I will breathe a minuscule hurrah.

;)

Link to comment
I originally planned to hide a real cache at the Goldloch. Two things prevented this though:

First the box and the logbook got wet during my descent through the canyon, and then I couldn't find a suitably dry spot to hide a box.

Therefore you need to post a picture of you in front of the spring in order to log this cache. GPS isn't necessary, there isn't any reception in the gorge. Feel free to post other pictures of your approach as well.

Coordinates are estimated, but you can't miss the spring.

 

This cache is an adventure that needs careful preparation and planning. Those who try this cache will be rewarded with a magnificant trip through a great landscape.

 

it sounds like a great adventure, one worth taking

Why does anyone need geocaching.com to support the trip with a "find"?

Nothing was hidden to be found, you were given directions to a cool place to see. Is that geocaching?

Link to comment

it sounds like a great adventure, one worth taking

Why does anyone need geocaching.com to support the trip with a "find"?

Nothing was hidden to be found, you were given directions to a cool place to see.  Is that geocaching?

Yes, for me this is geocaching. As you can read in the description, the owner tried to hide a box there, but it was not possible to do it in a reasonable way. It is his only virtual cache among more then 30.

 

He could have turned the cache into a physical cache by hiding a container at a place quite far from the gorge, but in my opinion the cache would not profit in this way, rather it would harm the cache.

 

As the requirement to search is regarded, there exist many caches where one can see the container already from quite some distance and there is no need to search. There also the only challenge is to reach the final coordinates and to enjoy the way to that place.

 

For me geocaching is a big resource for ideas where I can go. Without geocaching, I would either typically go to the same places over and over again or stay at home because it took me too long to decide where to go. Geocaching brought me to many places I have never had heard before and which are also not described in guide books. I am neither interested into the technological aspect of geocaching (I still enter the coordinates manually into my GPS and do not use SW for caching) nor do I like to search around for a long time for hidden objects. A restricted period is ok, but if I do not like tricky hideouts.

 

I would not like to have a visit a separate web site for every type of cache that offers me an opportunity for visiting wonderful places in the forest and up on mountains with the help of some sort of coordinates. The latter is what really interests me, not the search for a box.

 

BTW: There only exist 2 virtual caches in my country (out of over 700). I know several virtuals that have been submitted, but were turned down - they all were high quality caches. Their overall number was below 10 because typically cachers here use a virtual only in special cases where it is appropriate.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
And round and round we go.

 

My original response to this topic.

I knew your statement already and it is up to you to decide which caches are listed on this site.

 

The purpose of my postings was just to point out that not every cacher will agree with you and prefer the combination of a magnificent historical building with a box to a virtual cache showing only the first.

Then those people are interested in sightseeing, not Geocaching.

Link to comment

It seems as if virtuals are discouraged. Why then does the sites FAQ say:

 

"Are there any variations in the game?

 

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

 

Some examples - ....

 

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

 

It seems that there is a slight disconnect on this issue. I am new. I should keep my mouth shut. But, it seems to me that there are real mixed messages on this issue internally.

 

I don't understand the issue, frankly. If people like these, let them do it. If not, don't do 'em.

 

But, I recognize the site owners could arbitrarily say that caches can only be hidden by people named "Steve" and that would be a valid rule.

 

I just don't see the point in limiting this activity and discouraging creative thought...especially when the site allegedly encourages variations (including virtuals).

Link to comment
It seems as if virtuals are discouraged.  Why then does the sites FAQ say:

 

"Are there any variations in the game?

 

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

 

Some examples - ....

 

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

 

The faq is not the source of the guidelines and is not as up to date as them. I see the faq as a very general introductory statement and nothing more.

 

The actual guidelines are what are important. You can find the guidelines (very recently updated) for having a cache listed here.

 

Beyond that I am running away from this thread as fast I can. Not my cup of angst. See ya all! ;)

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