The Issue With Virtuals

[+Mopar]

My point is that some people are arguing that virtual caches are somehow NOT legitimate geocaches.

 

That view has clearly not always been the case, based on the FAQs.

Yes, once upon a time, virtual caches were a new variation with lots of potential.

It didn't take long for people to abuse them. I've done over 130 virtuals. Some of them are among my favorite caches ever. Most of them, however, are the reasons they had to get stricter about them. Among ones I've done (not just heard about):

• a fire hydrant
  
• a rock (twice)
  
• an entire city
  
• a street sign
  
• an abandoned car
  
• a tree
  
• a neon sign
  
• a hair salon
  
• a milepost
  
• dozens of little "something unimportant happened here a long time ago" signs at the curb
  

I venture to say if things had not changed there would be a grid of virtuals 500ft apart in some places by now.

Want to see how things might have been? Just look at Washington, DC

[cezanne]

Yes, once upon a time, virtual caches were a new variation with lots of potential.

It didn't take long for people to abuse them. I've done over 130 virtuals. Some of them are among my favorite caches ever. Most of them, however, are the reasons they had to get stricter about them.

I fully agree with you. Personally, I would not even have done 10 of such boring virtuals ... It is clear that there was a need to be more restrictive with virtuals.

 

There is, however, one aspect which often comes up in discussions about virtuals and with which I do not agree at all, namely the claim of those who are against virtuals (regardless of their quality) stating that virtuals and geocaching are conflicting notions.

This is simply not true as geocaching is a multi-faceted object which is not uniquely defined.

 

I have a question regarding those virtuals you really liked: Would you have preferred those caches in a version where a container has been hidden at some place (possibly at a rather large distance)? Some people here seem to claim that a virtual cache gets a better cache in all cases if one can find a container somewhere in the end.

 

Cezanne

[+JoGPS]

Lawcomic, I just have to ask, seeing that you are a defender of Virtual caches like myself, but you have never found one, how is that …………… JOE

[Lawcomic]

I just started Geocaching very recently.

[+JoGPS]

Does this mean all sock puppets are not banned, shame, thought I had found a real person to help with the battle on quality virtuals, but not today, another no name, one cache find and they are know it all’s about geocaching, just what the crusade needed, yea right …………. JOE

[+Grand_Royal]

Where does the Web-cam cache fit into all of this?

[+mtn-man]

That would be a different topic.

[+Grand_Royal]

I agree... its a different topic.

 

But, the web-cam has no physical log, no box in the wood, and only accepts a photo as evidence. It is similar in nature to a virtual cache.

 

Altough admittedly different... in a way.

[+Mopar]

I have a question regarding those virtuals you really liked: Would you have preferred those caches in a version where a container has been hidden at some place (possibly at a rather large distance)? Some people here seem to claim that a virtual cache gets a better cache in all cases if one can find a container somewhere in the end.

Well, the virtual was Warthog Down. Since most of my esteemed companions on that cache are also forum regulars, I'll let them speak for themselves. Me personally? I'm afraid I have to side with your "some people". As great as that cache was, it would have been even better for me if there had been a logbook for me to sign. I mean, I know I was there. I have plenty of witnesses. I have photos. It's still not the same for me as having my physical log sitting there waiting for the next brave soul.

The location of that cache is so remote, you probably could place a bright orange 55gal drum there for a cache and it will never get muggled. Maybe slightly less satisfying for me, but easier for the hider to maintain (and still better then a virtual for me) would have been to take the numbers used for the virtual verification and used them to compute a set of coords leading to a cache much closer to the parking coords.

[Lawcomic]

Does this mean all sock puppets are not banned, shame, thought I had found a real person to help with the battle on quality virtuals, but not today, another no name, one cache find and they are know it all’s about geocaching, just what the crusade needed, yea right …………. JOE

I'll handle the no-name, one cache end of the crusade.

 

You take the self-righteous, pompous side.

 

We should have it all covered.

[+MickEMT]

Mick, please direct us to the URL where the town's geocaching policy is published on the internet. Perhaps something was overlooked.

It's not published on the net. I went to the town hall.

[cezanne]

Well, the virtual was Warthog Down.

Well, that's not the sort of example where I feel that a cache container makes the cache worse (only harder to maintain). There are examples, however, where a container can either only be placed say 10 miles away or at ugly places or at places where in opinion no container should be placed at all. For example, I would feel different about the cache you mentioned if there a large jumbo jet had crashed and all the people died. At such a place I would not feel it appropriate to search for a cache, but still it can be worthwhile and rewarding to visit the location in a respectful manner (it is just hypothetical - I do not know of a concrete case in this setting). Likewise, I would not like to place a micro in the walls of a church or a synagogue (yes, in my country this would be possible in most places).

 

One of the problems with the current rules for micros is that is very hard to understand for people coming from different cultures and countries which are the places where no cache cannot be placed in a specific area they do not know and for which reasons.

 

Cezanne

[+Ambrosia]

I venture to say if things had not changed there would be a grid of virtuals 500ft apart in some places by now.

Want to see how things might have been? Just look at Washington, DC

Hey...how else could I have gotton one cache, turned around, and gotton another cache?

 

It's an experience in itself.

[+MickEMT]

I venture to say if things had not changed there would be a grid of virtuals 500ft apart in some places by now.

Want to see how things might have been? Just look at Washington, DC

Hey...how else could I have gotton one cache, turned around, and gotton another cache?

 

It's an experience in itself.

In sensitive or secure areas, a virtual makes more sense than a "traditional" cache.

Imagine finding an ammo box on the grounds of the Capitol Building???

Might not be a bad idea for us to voluntarilly ban regular caches within a certain distance of sensitive areas such as schools, govt buildings, RR bridges and such.

[+The Leprechauns]

Might not be a bad idea for us to voluntarilly ban regular caches within a certain distance of sensitive areas such as schools, govt buildings, RR bridges and such.

When's the last time you read the cache listing guidelines?

[+briansnat]

Mick, please direct us to the URL where the town's geocaching policy is published on the internet.  Perhaps something was overlooked. 

It's not published on the net. I went to the town hall.

And the town already had a geocaching policy in place? How proactive of them!

 

Might not be a bad idea for us to voluntarilly ban regular caches within a certain distance of sensitive areas such as schools, govt buildings, RR bridges and such

 

Ummm, places that caches are not allowed according to this site's guidelines (but you already knew this because you read them before you submitted your cache):

 

-Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

-Caches near or on military installations.

-Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

Edited February 17, 2005 by briansnat

[+The Leprechauns]

Mick, please direct us to the URL where the town's geocaching policy is published on the internet.  Perhaps something was overlooked. 

It's not published on the net. I went to the town hall.

Then how can you possibly blame the volunteer reviewers for not enforcing an unpublished policy that they don't know about? It is the hider's job, in the first instance, to find out about this. The reviewers only check against published policies that they know about.

[+Team Cotati]

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.

Me too. I quite agree.

[+Team Cotati]

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.

"...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."

 

Translated means that you really do not give a flying dadgum about virtuals in the first place and my advice would be to ignore them. It seems to me that there is a significant inability displayed in here to do that simple thing. Ignore them, period. If they are the likes of tracking telephone pole serial numbers and discovering the etchings of history written under toilet seats.....DELETE the danged things. Establish policies and actions that encourage virtual cache finders to report such pieces of dog poop then.....DELETE the danged things. I'd wager that doing this and doing it consistiently would 'fix' this issue rather quickly and diminish its need significantly. If you don't enjoy virtual caches..................IGNORE them. I don't enjoy terrain 4's and 5's, guess what?..............I IGNORE them. It is pretty easy, give it a try sometime.

 

And don't EVEN think about the 'M' word. There are one ton of 'traditional' caches that are in need of heavy duty maintenance and have been for a very long time. The types of virtuals that I'd suggest and that seem to be in the majority are not likely to require maintenance more often than every 20 years or so, if then. And I think that that ought to be one of the requirements for their approval. And if they happen to be of a type that might in fact realistically require some form of frequent maintenance, there are rules for that. Otherwise you simply do not approve them.

[+Renegade Knight]

Where does the Web-cam cache fit into all of this?

Virtuals use what's already there to make a cache. Webcams, Benchmarks and Virtuals plus some variations that don't exist yet but might someday, may have a different fan base but they have the same format. Go seek something already there at this spot and report on it somehow.

[+GixxerUT]

my advice would be to ignore them. It seems to me that there is a significant inability displayed in here to do that simple thing. Ignore them, period.

right

good timing LOL

the week that IGNORE is added

[+The Leprechauns]

But what if part of the way Gixxer plays the game is to keep a 25-mile circle around his house free and clear of unfound caches? Lots of people like to do this, and when a new cache pops up, of any type, they rush out to find it and leave a log saying "gotta keep my first page clean."

 

People who hate virtuals begrudgingly knock them off their nearest to home list in order to keep the list clear. Same goes for micros, puzzle caches, or full-size caches in uninspiring spots... whatever type of cache you love to hate.

[+southdeltan]

But what if part of the way Gixxer plays the game is to keep a 25-mile circle around his house free and clear of unfound caches? Lots of people like to do this, and when a new cache pops up, of any type, they rush out to find it and leave a log saying "gotta keep my first page clean."

 

People who hate virtuals begrudgingly knock them off their nearest to home list in order to keep the list clear. Same goes for micros, puzzle caches, or full-size caches in uninspiring spots... whatever type of cache you love to hate.

Ignore list.

 

sd

[+Team Cotati]

My point is that some people are arguing that virtual caches are somehow NOT legitimate geocaches.

 

That view has clearly not always been the case, based on the FAQs.

Yes, once upon a time, virtual caches were a new variation with lots of potential.

It didn't take long for people to abuse them. I've done over 130 virtuals. Some of them are among my favorite caches ever. Most of them, however, are the reasons they had to get stricter about them. Among ones I've done (not just heard about):

• 
   
   
  
• a fire hydrant
   
   
  
• a rock (twice)
   
   
  
• an entire city
   
   
  
• a street sign
   
   
  
• an abandoned car
   
   
  
• a tree
   
   
  
• a neon sign
   
   
  
• a hair salon
   
   
  
• a milepost
   
   
  
• dozens of little "something unimportant happened here a long time ago" signs at the curb
   
   
  

I venture to say if things had not changed there would be a grid of virtuals 500ft apart in some places by now.

Want to see how things might have been? Just look at Washington, DC

You know what dude, I did not check every single one of those horrible D.C. virtuals that seem to worry you so. But I did sample enough to realize that they are very good examples of what I believe virtuals should be. Not a single telephone pole or toilet seat was found though since I didn't check every one there might well be a couple buried in there. And as strange as it might seem, dang near ever one of those hated despicable virtuals is in downdown D.C. Once you get beyond the first few pages, the number of virtuals drops off pretty dramatically.

 

I have visited D.C. many many times. In fact I was born and raised a 3hour drive from there and thus visited relatively often and continue to visit every chance that I get. And I can tell you that in those virtuals are many many points of interest that most visitors would never come to experience. For those who have a keen interest in history and culture a listing of virtuals such as this is invaluable. That we in cahcing can experience an added dimension to the experience and then share it with our unseen caching buds is a gratifying experience in itself.

 

Why this bothers some people so much is a continuing sorce of amazement. And oh BTW, unless I have missed a couple, the lilkihood of maintenance = ZERO.

 

I must inquire, on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being "I eat, sleep, and dream history and culture" and 1 being "History? If it's older than yesterdays newspaper...who cares?", what would you say is your overall interest in the history of our country's founding, revolution and evolution?

 

Thanks.

 

P.S. I did see a few fire hydrants on my last visit but somehow missed the abandoned car. Must have been in the wrong part of town, eh?

Edited February 18, 2005 by Team cotati697

[Lawcomic]

I know I am being dense, repetitive, and argumentative here....

 

But....

 

With the advent of the ignore feature, why is this even an issue?

 

Shouldn't virts be allowed, so long as they are clearly labelled as virts, and let those that don't like them ignore them?

 

The regulations against virtuals now seem to have zero purpose whatsoever.

[+sept1c_tank]

...With the advent of the ignore feature, why is this even an issue?

 

Too much trouble to ignore.

Too easy to hate.

[+southdeltan]

Why is this even being argued?

 

The following quote came from THIS thread (EDDITED TO ADD: Jeremy posted both of these):

 

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.

 

So did this one:

 

I think, ultimately, there are three points:

 

1. Virtuals have a right to exist.

2. Geocaching.com was not designed for virtual (or locationless) caches.

3. There is a solution in the works which will improve functionality around virtual (and locationless) caches.

 

The solution is pretty close but from past experience I do not make deadlines anymore. We're just too small for that.

 

I'm not sure why there's still an arguement (I feel this has gone past discussion).

 

I personally love Virtuals and I've never seen any of the lame ones people talk about. That doesn't mean they don't exist - and that doesn't mean that they couldn't have been dealt without a making the guidelines so strict that it's almost impossible to get one listed (and also subjective).

 

However, it REALLY sounds like there are some things in the works that will be a viable solution for everybody. I'm looking forward to it. I might even log a locationless cache (since I hear the NEW ones won't count with physical caches. I hear the old ones will be grandfathered in).

 

I wonder if locationless caches will have a way to quickly sort by waypoint entered - or maybe a way to view the listed waypoints on a map. I can think of several things like this that would make verification easier for the owner and the person trying to submit a log.

 

Back to the topic, it seems that some people are very much PRO virtual and some are very much ANTI virtual and I'd wager most people fall somewhere in between. A solution is in the works, so I think patience is called for in this situation.

 

sd

Edited February 18, 2005 by southdeltan

[+Mopar]

You know what dude, I did not check every single one of those horrible D.C. virtuals that seem to worry you so. But I did sample enough to realize that they are very good examples of what I believe virtuals should be. Not a single telephone pole or toilet seat was found though since I didn't check every one there might well be a couple buried in there. And as strange as it might seem, dang near ever one of those hated despicable virtuals is in downdown D.C. Once you get beyond the first few pages, the number of virtuals drops off pretty dramatically.

 

I have visited D.C. many many times. In fact I was born and raised a 3hour drive from there and thus visited relatively often and continue to visit every chance that I get. And I can tell you that in those virtuals are many many points of interest that most visitors would never come to experience. For those who have a keen interest in history and culture a listing of virtuals such as this is invaluable. That we in cahcing can experience an added dimension to the experience and then share it with our unseen caching buds is a gratifying experience in itself.

 

Why this bothers some people so much is a continuing sorce of amazement. And oh BTW, unless I have missed a couple, the lilkihood of maintenance = ZERO.

 

I must inquire, on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being "I eat, sleep, and dream history and culture" and 1 being "History? If it's older than yesterdays newspaper...who cares?", what would you say is your overall interest in the history of our country's founding, revolution and evolution?

 

Thanks.

I guess I COULD do like others and tell you to read for comprehension.

I never said any of the listed lame virts were in DC. As a matter of fact I greatly enjoyed many of the virtuals in DC. I used DC as an example of 50 or more virtuals essentially in a 528ft (or less) grid. Much the way certain other cities are cited as examples of out of hand placement of other cache types.

What if instead of DC it was 50 virtual caches all over Fairfield, CA? If instead of impressive, historical monuments it was find a tree. Walk a block and log a stopsign. Cross the street and log the serial number of a phone pole. Walk a block and email me the price of a haircut. Cross back over and tell me the name of the disposal company on the dumpster in the alley. Go to the park, and instead of finding a cache full of toys for your kid, count the number of blue swings to log a find.

That's where things were heading, thats the sort of things that people were getting approved. Lets not even get into the ones that were turned down, like the "take a pic of the decaying carcass".

It should be quite obvious I'm not against virtual caches, I'm against the types of virtuals that are thankfully no longer allowed.

[+Team Cotati]

You know what dude, I did not check every single one of those horrible D.C. virtuals that seem to worry you so. But I did sample enough to realize that they are very good examples of what I believe virtuals should be. Not a single telephone pole or toilet seat was found though since I didn't check every one there might well be a couple buried in there. And as strange as it might seem, dang near ever one of those hated despicable virtuals is in downdown D.C. Once you get beyond the first few pages, the number of virtuals drops off pretty dramatically.

 

I have visited D.C. many many times. In fact I was born and raised a 3hour drive from there and thus visited relatively often and continue to visit every chance that I get. And I can tell you that in those virtuals are many many points of interest that most visitors would never come to experience. For those who have a keen interest in history and culture a listing of virtuals such as this is invaluable. That we in cahcing can experience an added dimension to the experience and then share it with our unseen caching buds is a gratifying experience in itself.

 

Why this bothers some people so much is a continuing sorce of amazement. And oh BTW, unless I have missed a couple, the lilkihood of maintenance = ZERO.

 

I must inquire, on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being "I eat, sleep, and dream history and culture" and 1 being "History? If it's older than yesterdays newspaper...who cares?", what would you say is your overall interest in the history of our country's founding, revolution and evolution?

 

Thanks.

I guess I COULD do like others and tell you to read for comprehension.

I never said any of the listed lame virts were in DC. As a matter of fact I greatly enjoyed many of the virtuals in DC. I used DC as an example of 50 or more virtuals essentially in a 528ft (or less) grid. Much the way certain other cities are cited as examples of out of hand placement of other cache types.

What if instead of DC it was 50 virtual caches all over Fairfield, CA? If instead of impressive, historical monuments it was find a tree. Walk a block and log a stopsign. Cross the street and log the serial number of a phone pole. Walk a block and email me the price of a haircut. Cross back over and tell me the name of the disposal company on the dumpster in the alley. Go to the park, and instead of finding a cache full of toys for your kid, count the number of blue swings to log a find.

That's where things were heading, thats the sort of things that people were getting approved. Lets not even get into the ones that were turned down, like the "take a pic of the decaying carcass".

It should be quite obvious I'm not against virtual caches, I'm against the types of virtuals that are thankfully no longer allowed.

I know that I have said this at least 15 times in the past. However it is once again obvious that a repeat is in order: DELETE the fricking things. Have mercy, why is this such a diffucult concept to grasp?

 

And yes you COULD do that and that would be just fine with me. And trust me, if Fairfield, CA. were so fortunate to have the number and quality of potential virtual caches that you seem to enjoy so much then I would have absolutely NO problem with them being listed as such. Perhaps moving away from the past and away from that which is no longer allowed would be of benefit.

 

The level of emotional damage that seems to have been caused by those nasty old telephone poles, abandoned cars and fire hydrants runs much deeper than I would have imagined.

 

And you know what, I fear that our beloved Virtual caches might not be included in our total found count when we move to the new world order. I really hope that I am wrong on this one.

Edited February 18, 2005 by Team cotati697