Jump to content

Posting A Virtual Cache


Freddo
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I have proposed a virtual cache called Backa Birk (GCMVFW) for approval. The reviewers have knocked it back and I wish to see what the general consensus of the geocaching population might be.

 

The cache will bring geocachers to a beautiful church garden with a series of magnificent Carrera marble statues and a number of historic sites associated with the area.

 

I think this cache complies with all of the guidelines for a virtual cache.

-The location is specific.

-There is a specific task to complete that cannot be completed without visiting the site.

-It is inappropriate to place a physical cache at the location.

-The cache has significant merit and good reasons for visiting the site.

 

I don't think it is proper to put a physical cache at this location. I could, but at the risk of offending 600 million Catholics I think a virtual is more suitable. The specific task is identify a particular statue at GZ. I consider that a collection of world class carvings from a deceased sculptor have "wow" factor and thus be suitable for a virtual.

 

To reiterate. I don't think it would be appreciated if we put a cache in the middle of a cathedral. But a virtual will encourage visits to the site and give it more publicity.

 

Your thoughts please.

 

Regards

 

Freddo

Edited by Freddo
Link to comment

600 million Catholics would be offended? How do you know that? Did you take a poll?

 

I had a cache in a park right next to an old cathedral. Not a single complaint. The only reason it's archived now is because I moved out of the area and couldn't maintain it from my new home.

 

Even if it would be inappropriate to place a container in the garden, surely you could place a physical container a little further away and use the items in the garden as clues to finding it.

Link to comment

The waqy the guidelines are currently written in regards to virtuals, there is almost no way to get one approved as there is nearly always some way to turn a potential virtual sote into some form of multi if no cache can actually be placed there. And that seems to be the point - TPTB don't want a proliferation of virtuals. So ya got something ya want others to see? You're gonna have to create some kind of a multi using what you want folks to see to send them to a cache of some kind to get it approved.

Link to comment

I can't remember finding in caches in a church garden. But I'm not sure I've ever seen a church garden. I don't think we have those here.

 

However I've found many caches in marble orchards that were adjacent to churches. I enjoyed every one of them. Several people I know who are very religious and go to church every week also enjoy these caches. So your comment about "offending 600 million Catholics" is way off base.

Link to comment
The waqy the guidelines are currently written in regards to virtuals, there is almost no way to get one approved as there is nearly always some way to turn a potential virtual sote into some form of multi if no cache can actually be placed there.  And that seems to be the point - TPTB don't want a proliferation of virtuals.  So ya got something ya want others to see?  You're gonna have to create some kind of a multi using what you want folks to see to send them to a cache of some kind to get it approved.

This is basically it. But I will add that it can make for a really cool cache. Use info from the area to create a multi-cache. Have people add numbers or letters or whatever (play with it) from the area to get coords to a physical cache elsewhere. Look for a park nearby or something for that. Cachers will then see the area and also get a physical cache. It also can allow for you to make sure they visit multiple interesting things rather than a quick visit to grab the virtual verification. You can do that by using info from the area to create several stages of the multi. When I have seen such caches I have normally been impressed, and since I personally tend to do virts only once in awhile and skip many, a person like me would be more likely to visit if it was a multi-cache. I also urge the multi option over the simple micro placed there option. The multi will be more interesting. :lol:

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment
A mutli detracts from the area the virtual would bring you to. This is standard approval methodology but I'm not sure it makes for a better cache than the virtual would be by itself.

Worrying about reading the cache page and trying to write down or remember the proper vitual verification (especially knowing how anal some virt owners can be about the verification info) distracts me way more then signing a log book.

Link to comment
A multi detracts from the area the virtual would bring you to. This is standard approval methodology but I'm not sure it makes for a better cache than the virtual would be by itself.

That's really becoming a lame argument. If you can't experience the "virtual place" a cacher took you to and then sign a logbook a little further away, then why bother to go at all? Odds are your next cache stop will be a lame lamp post hide at WalMart anyway. :lol: Let's look at the big picture here.

Link to comment

Guys you have it exactly backwards.

 

All the virtual cache becomes is a waypoint on the way to the micro at Wal-Mart. It does take away from the virtual.

 

Virtuals are not my favorite cache. I'd rather find a box. But if it's not appropriate to have one then why ruin it with a crappy multi?

 

I know I'm not going to convince either of you, but trust me that making a cache a multi doesn't magically make it better, and if you change the focus of the cache you change the experience. The cache experience is the owners prerogative. This site lists caches, or it doesn’t. It should end there. Not with suggestions that do nothing for the cache experience. Of course the bias against virtuals and the subjective nature of them make that virtually impossible.

Link to comment
Guys you have it exactly backwards.

 

All the virtual cache becomes is a waypoint on the way to the micro at Wal-Mart. It does take away from the virtual.

 

Virtuals are not my favorite cache. I'd rather find a box. But if it's not appropriate to have one then why ruin it with a crappy multi?

 

I know I'm not going to convince either of you, but trust me that making a cache a multi doesn't magically make it better, and if you change the focus of the cache you change the experience. The cache experience is the owners prerogative. This site lists caches, or it doesn’t. It should end there. Not with suggestions that do nothing for the cache experience. Of course the bias against virtuals and the subjective nature of them make that virtually impossible.

Why does the multi have to be carppy? I have really liked the multis I did that started at a virtual point. And I liked them much more than I would a standard virt. I don't think they detracted from the virt. If anything it made me look more carefully because I needed to get the info right and double check it for the next point. With a virt, I would likely snap a digital photo and get the verification info at home from that. Plus I would have likely ignored the virt, but sought the multi. So with that in mind I like the idea of suggesting a multi. Plus if it won't meet the guidelines, it won't and then a multi suggestion seems preferable over the micro suggestion considering all the angst that micros seem to cause.

Link to comment
I wrote a response concerning the purpose and benefits of virtual cache location offsets (and where they won't work). Then I realized I was just partaking in the same, old, virtual, debate.

 

I could just kick myself.

I know that feeling. It is that "ACK! I just now maybe participated in angst" feeling! From my experience it passes quickly fortunately. :lol:

Link to comment

Given that we now have ignore lists for premium members, why aren't the approvers told to use a looser definition of "wow" and "can't you make it a micro-multi"? Can't you just ignore the virtuals if you don't like to remember validation questions and work with cache owner's wants?

 

In other words, isn't the only argument against a broader approval of virtuals that it keeps the sport "pure"?

Link to comment

I'm a Catholic and I don't see how having a real cache at the site would offend me any more or less than a virtual cache would (actually I wouldn't be offended by either).

 

And as a geocacher I fail to see see why you can't use and object, or a number of objects there to point to a real cache a short distance away. In fact if you want people to see things, its better for that purpose, because instead of someone going up to a single stague and jotting down confirmation info and leaving, you can make them wander from place to place to obtain parts of the cache coordinates.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Given that we now have ignore lists for premium members, why aren't the approvers told to use a looser definition of "wow" and "can't you make it a micro-multi"? Can't you just ignore the virtuals if you don't like to remember validation questions and work with cache owner's wants?

 

In other words, isn't the only argument against a broader approval of virtuals that it keeps the sport "pure"?

No. Several land managers have banned or severely restricted physical caches because virtuals are still an option. As long as virtuals can be pointed to as an altenative to leaving a container, we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

Link to comment

In response to the topic as originally posted...

 

I would also add that I would not be offended. I could see the Vatican being a virtual cache, but not a local church in Australia. Virtual caches are about extraordinary things. If it is just a garden, then why is this one better than any other one on the planet? Also, when you are talking about something being "world famous", I think it would be something more like the Vatican and not this garden. I've never heard of it before. There is not much about it on the Intenet either.

 

After doing some googling I think I finally found the web page. http://www.stpauls.mx.com.au/

 

In the photos it shows a large parking area with lots of people. There are lots of places to put a cache there, even a larger one. The idea for placing caches near spots like this is not always to put it inside the garden, but in the parking area or somewhere near the church and garden.

 

In looking at the pictures I don't feel this is more special than the Vatican. I am sorry, but I think your cache fails as a virtual cache.

 

If you have a comment about the cache in question then that is fine. This topic is not another broad debate about virtual caches in general.

Link to comment

Although the world population of Catholics is somewhere near 1.06 Billion, almost .04 of that is clergy, so we'll round your population down to 1.02 billion.

 

Of course, you're not talking about the world, you're talking about Australia, in which 25% of the 20 million people are Catholic, which brings your staggering guestimate of 600 million people to offend down to a piddly 4,000,812 Australian Catholics country wide.

 

Now, you're in South Australia, so if you zero in on your state specifically, that brings the population down to 1,459,600 total South Australians of which 364,900 would be Catholic, again using that 25% I've mentioned above.

 

Now then, 73% of the population is in Adelade, so if you're talking about Adeladian Catholics, you have (at most) a mere 266,377 Adeladian South Australian Catholics to piss off. If you're not in Adelade, that figure drops down to 98,523 people.

 

I'm not sure how they do math down there, but here, 98.5 million people is nowhere near this 600 million you're referring to.

 

Now, then, There are only 17,070 geocaching accounts active this week. Even if every single one of them was in SA, you'd be much below those billions you referred to earlier.

 

Now then. The world population is 6,421,291,855 - Australia's population is .3% of the world's population. With that said, and using this week's active account data, then 51.2 cachers in the world were active this week in Australia.

 

However, since only 7% of Australia's population is in South Australia, then of those 51.21 Australian Cachers, only 3.58 of them are in South Australia. Once Again, 73% of South Australia's population is in Adelade.

 

SO, if your Catholic garden is in Adelade, you're pissing off 3 people at the most. If it's in any other area of South Australia, you have one lone cacher to worry about.

 

Place a regular cache and get over it.

Link to comment
Guys you have it exactly backwards.

 

All the virtual cache becomes is a waypoint on the way to the micro at Wal-Mart.  It does take away from the virtual.

 

Virtuals are not my favorite cache.  I'd rather find a box. But if it's not appropriate to have one then why ruin it with a crappy multi?

 

I know I'm not going to convince either of you, but trust me that making a cache a multi doesn't magically make it better, and if you change the focus of the cache you change the experience.  The cache experience is the owners prerogative.  This site lists caches, or it doesn’t.  It should end there.  Not with suggestions that do nothing for the cache experience. Of course the bias against virtuals and the subjective nature of them make that virtually impossible.

I know what you're trying to get across here RK. When I'm trying to enjoy a meal at a restaurant I don't want an employee running a vacuum cleaner. To me the intended atmosphere without distractions is important. To me the multi and vacuum cleaner would detract from the theme of the desired atmosphere. I guess others including the vacuum operator think otherwise. Oh well, such is life.

Link to comment

As I said in my post, a multi is not needed. Place a cache in the bushes or trees in the parking lot. Then all you have to do is walk inside the gate after you sign the logbook. If the only way to get them inside to see it is to place the cache inside the gardens, then they are there only for the smiley and not to see the gardens anyway.

Link to comment

I am not sure why mtn-man is against approving virtual caches. Maybe he is concerned that we will out do one of his 10 "unique and interesting" virtual caches. I am not sure how in the heck he got one of his virtuals approved...guess you've got to be and insider. My favorite is the Kennesaw Hill photo from beneath power lines. Take a look at what he got through the system...

 

-WJ

Link to comment
I am not sure why mtn-man is against approving virtual caches. Maybe he is concerned that we will out do one of his 10 "unique and interesting" virtual caches. I am not sure how in the heck he got one of his virtuals approved...guess you've got to be and insider. My favorite is the Kennesaw Hill photo from beneath power lines. Take a look at what he got through the system...

 

-WJ

If you look at the dates of all of his virts they were listed well before the virtual ban on virtuals. A post like that will not really get any brownie points or further the discusson.

 

I like virts, they have their place just like any other type of cache. I think the restrictions on them could be relaxed a bit.

 

Waiting with bated breathe for the new way they will be handled on this site.....

Link to comment
I am not sure why mtn-man is against approving virtual caches. Maybe he is concerned that we will out do one of his 10 "unique and interesting" virtual caches. I am not sure how in the heck he got one of his virtuals approved...guess you've got to be and insider. My favorite is the Kennesaw Hill photo from beneath power lines. Take a look at what he got through the system...

 

-WJ

Thanks for the laugh!

 

mtn-man is probably a bigger proponent of virtual caches than most of the other site volunteers. He enjoys finding the good ones and, when the site guidelines weren't as tight as they are now, he hid quite a few. Maybe some of them would still be listed today, and others wouldn't be. Look at the dates on his hidden caches and compare it to when the guidelines were tightened.

 

Regardless of personal opinion, when we are reviewing cache submissions we are obligated to list the caches that meet the guidelines and to question caches that don't. It's not whether we are "for" or "against" a certain cache type. I am not a big fan of math puzzles because I'm too stupid to solve them. But if I didn't list them, and only listed long multicaches out in the boonies (my favorite type), I'm sure there'd be a forum thread about it very quickly.

Link to comment
I am not sure why mtn-man is against approving virtual caches. Maybe he is concerned that we will out do one of his 10 "unique and interesting" virtual caches. I am not sure how in the heck he got one of his virtuals approved...guess you've got to be and insider.  My favorite is the Kennesaw Hill photo from beneath power lines. Take a look at what he got through the system...

 

-WJ

Thanks for the laugh!

 

mtn-man is probably a bigger proponent of virtual caches than most of the other site volunteers. He enjoys finding the good ones and, when the site guidelines weren't as tight as they are now, he hid quite a few. Maybe some of them would still be listed today, and others wouldn't be. Look at the dates on his hidden caches and compare it to when the guidelines were tightened.

 

Regardless of personal opinion, when we are reviewing cache submissions we are obligated to list the caches that meet the guidelines and to question caches that don't. It's not whether we are "for" or "against" a certain cache type. I am not a big fan of math puzzles because I'm too stupid to solve them. But if I didn't list them, and only listed long multicaches out in the boonies (my favorite type), I'm sure there'd be a forum thread about it very quickly.

Thank you Keystone. Well said and all true.

(I am too stupid for most of the math puzzles too, but I don't knock them).

 

Some people should be less quick to jump to conclusions and should probably do better due diligence before making rash assumptions. That might keep you from looking like an... uninformed person.

Link to comment

I agree that the virtual should be approved.

 

It's a historical place (granted not on the same level as the Vatican but please :ph34r: ).

 

Why can't we respect the wishes of the hider and allow them the good grace that they don't want to turn the gardens at the cathedral into a physical cache.

 

It is a holy place and the hider wants to respect that.

 

Why do you people hate Australians anyway if we're only .3% of the worlds population. We're a different country and act a little differently, so let the hider place his virtual and respect his desires.

Link to comment
Is that it guys. Where are all of the virtual cache lovers? Give me your vote please.

 

This cache has WOW factor and you are only going to find out if it is approved.

In my book it all boils down to this.

 

Geocaching.com is not a democracy. TPTB have set these guidelines and, if we want to play in their sandbox, we have to comply. At any time, any of us can pack up and go elsewhere if we don't like how things are done here.

Link to comment

Firstly this is a very civilised debate. As it should be.

 

Over here in Australia we have also heard that virtuals were getting very hard to get approved. Not that I have tried to get one done.

 

I had one idea as a virtual that I made a physical because I had heard you couldn't get approved but have since archived due to the complaints.

 

But if this cache meets all the guidelines I don't see why it couldn't have been approved. It doesn't seem to breach any of them and there the "WOW" factor referred to is obviously a personal decision. As mentioned, we have to follow the rules of the TPTB if we want to play here, even if we don't like them.

 

Cheers, Richard

Link to comment
Is that it guys. Where are all of the virtual cache lovers? Give me your vote please.

 

This cache has WOW factor and you are only going to find out if it is approved.

I was in that "very" garden only a few weeks ago..

 

"WOW" doesnt even do it justice... It's quite unbeliavable......

 

And a great spot for a virtual, I wouldnt want to see and also dont think it will work in the way of a real cache being there....

Link to comment

geocaching.com is not a democracy and therefore can do whatever is required, even to allow a bit of leeway from rigid guidelines which, if followed strictly will only serve to limit our caching experiences into mundane conformity.

 

Freddo is a long term (over three years) cacher with a wealth of classic cache hides to his credit; actuals, virtuals and plenty of challenging multis. If Freddo believes this cache deserves a virtual then I am willing to support it wholeheartedly. Surely TPTB could give some credence and weighting to the judgement of a very senior and capable cacher.

Link to comment
I agree that the virtual should be approved.

 

It's a historical place (granted not on the same level as the Vatican but please :ph34r: ).

 

Why can't we respect the wishes of the hider and allow them the good grace that they don't want to turn the gardens at the cathedral into a physical cache.

 

It is a holy place and the hider wants to respect that.

 

Why do you people hate Australians anyway if we're only .3% of the worlds population. We're a different country and act a little differently, so let the hider place his virtual and respect his desires.

Where the heck did this "why does everyone hate the Aussies? crap come from? I didn't even know this discussion was about an Australian cache. Geocaching is a worldwide game, and this is a worldwide website. They don't have different versions of the rules for different countries. Hopefully the guidelines are applied evenly no matter what country the hider is in. In that respect, I doubt such a virtual as discussed in this thread would be listed here in the US, so why should it be different because it's in Australia?

 

As for respecting the wishes of the hider and trusting their judgment; that's pretty much the way things USED to be run on this website. It seems to have worked well when there were a few hundred hiders. It even worked fine when there were a few thousand hiders. I'm sorry but it stopped working a long time ago. When every hider was just allowed to use their so-called good judgment to place a cache, we got telephone pole, stop sign and fire hydrant virtuals. We got graffiti on bridge overpass and abandoned car virtuals. We had dead, decaying animal virtuals. We got old soda cans, tennis balls and sneakers listed as code word caches.

Individually, people usually follow the rules and do the right thing. As a society, that's not so true. If it was, we wouldn't need locks and alarms on our cars and homes. We wouldn't need security guards and police. We wouldn't need cache reviewers and guidelines.

 

TPTB decided to set some guidelines as to the types of caches they want to be associated with their website and their company.

Why can't people respect their wishes and allow then the good grace to only list the types of caches they want on their privately owned website?

Link to comment
As I said in my post, a multi is not needed. Place a cache in the bushes or trees in the parking lot. Then all you have to do is walk inside the gate after you sign the logbook. If the only way to get them inside to see it is to place the cache inside the gardens, then they are there only for the smiley and not to see the gardens anyway.

WOW I agree with Mtn-man, LOL. The idea of a multi distracting from a attraction of the people seeing what is around them is dependant upon the poeple. The the idea of placing a traditional cache with a wonderful view results in the same thing. People come find the cache sign the log and beat feet back down the hill and never see the view. So then why is a Wal-Mart micro lame if people don't look at the world around them. The two are the same. Okay I am being sarcastic but it is valid logic non the less.

cheers

Link to comment
As for respecting the wishes of the hider and trusting their judgment; that's pretty much the way things USED to be run on this website. It seems to have worked well when there were a few hundred hiders. It even worked fine when there were a few thousand hiders. I'm sorry but it stopped working a long time ago. When every hider was just allowed to use their so-called good judgment to place a cache, we got telephone pole, stop sign and fire hydrant virtuals. We got graffiti on bridge overpass and abandoned car virtuals. We had dead, decaying animal virtuals. We got old soda cans, tennis balls and sneakers listed as code word caches. 

Individually, people usually follow the rules and do the right thing. As a society, that's not so true. If it was, we wouldn't need locks and alarms on our cars and homes. We wouldn't need security guards and police. We wouldn't need cache reviewers and guidelines.

 

TPTB decided to set some guidelines as to the types of caches they want to be associated with their website and their company.

Why can't people respect their wishes and allow then the good grace to only list the types of caches they want on their privately owned website?

I think part of the problem is that it went from one extreme to the other. There is a middle ground. Also, virts are regulated far more than any other type of cache. What would happen if 'wow' was required on all types of caches? It might have been better had they just had a moratorium put on them like locationless ones. Hopefully the new way to list these types of caches will clear it all up. I seriously doubt that everyone will be pleased with it. That would be impossible. I just hope that it comes soon and is a reasonable alternative. That would end quite a bit of the B&Ming from both sides of the issue, altho I'm sure it will raise issues of its own also. At his time tho, virts are a carrot held just out of our reach, and people don't like to be teased.

Link to comment

I support Freddo's request to have this cache approved.

 

The guidelines do suggest that he SHOULD be asking for forum for concensus, which he has done.

 

Those that know the area have agreed that it is inappropriate for a cache to be placed there.

 

There is a wow factor.

 

Freddo creates some of the most challenging, well thought out caches in Adelaide. Many a time a no-find has been followed with "but its' a freddo" because his hides are just that good.

 

If Freddo thinks its' appropriate for a virt, then please listen to him.

Link to comment

Does this facility have a published policy prohibiting geocaching? If not, don't immediately assume that they would not welcome a geocache to bring more people to visit the gardens. Have a look at this recent example. It would be so cool to drive up to a monastery and be greeted by nuns who were excited that you were there to find the geocache hidden in their meditation garden!

Edited by The Leprechauns
Link to comment
Does this facility have a published policy prohibiting geocaching? If not, don't immediately assume that they would not welcome a geocache to bring more people to visit the gardens. Have a look at this recent example. It would be so cool to drive up to a monastery and be greeted by nuns who were excited that you were there to find the geocache hidden in their meditation garden!

Man, I just love this log on that cache:

We parked in the main lot of the St. Clare Monastery and were greeted warmly by several of the sisters. They asked if we were geocaching and were delighted to hear that we were out doing such wholesome things as a family. The stations lining the trail, the statues, and the various artwork along the way were very appealing. Although I have passed by this driveway hundreds of times, I never knew what was up that hill. I'm glad you gave me the motive to finally discover it, mybob, and thanks to the sisters for their warm hospitality. We traded some geostuff, and I left a TB.

 

Looks like mybob very nicely handled many potential problems. On private property with permission, and steered clear of any sort of real religious agenda while still letting you know in advance what type of place the cache is in. Sounds like a great cache.

Link to comment

You are not going to get a decision in the forums. You will get opinions and recommendations, but no decision unless you choose to make one yourself.

 

My opinion is to go put a cache in the parking lot and be done with it. You have expended a lot of time watching the forums and could been talking to them about getting permission for that.

 

Your final arbitor is the appeals at geocaching dott com email address (written out for web spider sake). They will give you a final yes or no. Send them a link to this topic.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...