Lack Of New Virtuals

[+fersman4]

I did a pocket query for virtual caches within 500 miles of my coordinates (Dublin, California - N37*43.000 W121*54.000) that have been "placed" within the last 8 months. There were NINE! new virtuals. Some might be upset at the lack of approval for virtuals, but I'm going to have to disagree.

 

I looked at the details of these 9 places, and they look AWESOME (especially those placed more recently)! It is plainly simple to see why war memorials, lighthouses, and other "areas of interest" are not approved compared to these places. I now understand that the virtual site has to be truly something very very special. I just wanted to let the approvers know that I agree with the current very restrictive policy used for approving virtuals.

 

Keep up the good work!

Edited March 2, 2005 by fersman4

[CoyoteRed]

I'm concerned when the new section for virtuals is finally made available it would just go back to the same old thing of waypointing every historical marker, bird carcass, pothole, and fence post. Nothing would have really changed.

 

I would prefer keep a bit of the subjective challenge to the placement and just relax the "wow factor" and do away with "unique." It doesn't have to be "wow." How about "neat?" And instead of "unique" how about "out of the ordinary?"

 

I mean contrast the "neat and out of the ordinary" virtual with a junk cache.

[Hucklebuck]

I've got a monument near my house. It memorializes Shermans surrender to the Union Army. It's cool historically, but has zero wow factor. A few years ago I could have done it as a virtual and got it approved and it would have been even better than some of the others around. Can you image driving twenty minutes into the sticks to see a rock! There is a town park about 2 miles away, so I may do it as a multi, but my feelings weren't hurt by the virtual ban on virtuals. We as hiders just have to work a little harder now.

[+erik88l-r]

The dirty little secret about virts is that it blocks future physical caches. On a small scale it literally blocks those placed within a .1 mile radius from being approved. On a larger scale it can block entire park systems from future caches, can result in existing physical caches being pulled.

 

Small scale - as a cache reviewer I had to decline to post a physical cache last week placed by a new geocacher local to an island in the Carribean because of an existing lame vacation virtual placed years ago. The "owner" of the virt declined to achive it, and as a result he's impeeding the growth of our sport in a place that had no local geocachers until recently.

 

Large scale - entire park systems have taken note of past virts and have seen this as an acceptable alternative to permiting physical caches in their parks. It may be acceptable to them, and it may be acceptable to a minority of geocachers, but I don't think it's good for the sport. Unfortunately this situation continues to crop up as park managers discover our sport and all its variations. It's a hard battle to fight.

 

So hopefully that helps explain the reluctance by the cache reviewers to approve virtual caches.

 

erik - geocaching.com admin

[+cache_test_dummies]

The dirty little secret about virts is that it blocks future physical caches. On a small scale it literally blocks those placed within a .1 mile radius from being approved

Perhaps when GC.com releases the new way of handling virtuals this will be addressed.

 

On a larger scale it can block entire park systems from future caches, can result in existing physical caches being pulled. ... entire park systems have taken note of past virts and have seen this as an acceptable alternative to permiting physical caches in their parks

This will be a tougher problem to solve, although I wonder how often this actually occurs?

[+Robespierre]

It memorializes Shermans surrender to the Union Army.

That could have a real wow factor...unless it's a different Sherman. The one I'm thinking of was a Union General.

[WH]

It is my understanding that the .1 mile rule was establsihed to keep them far enough apart so people dont accidentally mistake one cache from another.

 

Perhaps virtuals should be exempt from the .1 mile rule. Whos is going to mistake an ammocan or a tupperware container for a stone monument?

[+Team Tigger International]

Large scale - entire park systems have taken note of past virts and have seen this as an acceptable alternative to permiting physical caches in their parks.

 

If its a Park System that will not allow physical caches , then why can't the geocaching community work with them and allow virts in these parks ? Seems like a reasonable way to cooperate with them if you ask me. Maybe even by doing so it will eventually convince them to let cachers turn virts into traditional caches in these parks in the future.

 

Star ...

Once again I see I am in what is considered by some "the minority of geocachers"... I like Virtual Caches. Heck I can find something to like about them all !

[CoyoteRed]

The dirty little secret about virts is that it blocks future physical caches.

Think it was wrong then and I think that is wrong now.

 

And it would take nothing but a simple policy change to correct it and I can't think of one reason why the change would adversely affect the hobby.

 

On a larger scale, how is that arguement going to pan out when the super-duper new virtuals and locationlesses section comes online? Or did you just let a cat out of Jeremy's bag and it just isn't going to happen?

[+cache_test_dummies]

Once again I see I am in what is considered by some "the minority of geocachers"... I like Virtual Caches.

I like virtuals too. We're a minority?

[Keystone]

On a larger scale it can block entire park systems from future caches, can result in existing physical caches being pulled. ... entire park systems have taken note of past virts and have seen this as an acceptable alternative to permiting physical caches in their parks

This will be a tougher problem to solve, although I wonder how often this actually occurs?

Without even spending time to research your question, I can think of land manager policies in Kentucky, North Carolina and Ohio where virtual caches are specifically mentioned as the only acceptable type of cache at certain places. A good example is this excerpt from the North Carolina State Parks policy: "Virtual caches should be encouraged in lieu of physical caches."

 

I recall a particularly frustrating experience I had as a reviewer when working with a geocacher in an Ohio County Park system that had just adopted a geocaching policy. The land manager insisted that only a virtual cache would be allowed, because it was a "sensitive nature preserve." Yet the webpage for that property has a picture of the paved parking lot, picnic pavilions, kiddie playground, and mowed field. The geocacher had tried, unsuccessfully, to get a multicache that toured the geocacher on boardwalks through a wetlands area -- a birdwatcher's paradise -- but ending with a physical container in the developed part of the property. It seemed like a very responsible placement.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Without even spending time to research your question, I can think of land manager policies in Kentucky, North Carolina and Ohio where virtual caches are specifically mentioned as the only acceptable type of cache at certain places.

Wow. Thanks, KA - I had no idea it was this much of a problem.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

It is my understanding that the .1 mile rule was establsihed to keep them far enough apart so people dont accidentally mistake one cache from another.

 

Perhaps virtuals should be exempt from the .1 mile rule. Whos is going to mistake an ammocan or a tupperware container for a stone monument?

I think it's more than just confusion

 

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

Edited March 4, 2005 by Team GPSaxophone

[+Team Tigger International]

Once again I see I am in what is considered by some "the minority of geocachers"... I like Virtual Caches.

I like virtuals too. We're a minority?

I got that imperssion from the rest of the quoted paragraph ...

 

Large scale - entire park systems have taken note of past virts and have seen this as an acceptable alternative to permiting physical caches in their parks. It may be acceptable to them, and it may be acceptable to a minority of geocachers, but I don't think it's good for the sport. Unfortunately this situation continues to crop up as park managers discover our sport and all its variations. It's a hard battle to fight.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Whos is going to mistake an ammocan or a tupperware container for a stone monument?

Gives me a great idea for a new disguise for a cache container. Anybody know where I can buy 3,000 pounds of cement?

[CoyoteRed]

Without even spending time to research your question, I can think of land manager policies in Kentucky, North Carolina and Ohio where virtual caches are specifically mentioned as the only acceptable type of cache at certain places.

Wow. Thanks, KA - I had no idea it was this much of a problem.

I don't think it is.

 

We're talking about the solution of a problem presented by a park system in a few states controlling the entire geocaching world. In essence, letting a single person or group control the whole hobby.

 

Do like we're done here, abandon the park system altogether.

 

That's not to mention I've not seen mention is the fact virts by their vary nature has to have some sort of physical "monument" in order to work. Many parks don't have this much less in areas where we normally would put a physical cache.

 

Restricting virts is just an easy out to the "problem."

[+cache_test_dummies]

Once again I see I am in what is considered by some "the minority of geocachers"... I like Virtual Caches.

I like virtuals too. We're a minority?

I got that imperssion from the rest of the quoted paragraph ...

 

Large scale - entire park systems have taken note of past virts and have seen this as an acceptable alternative to permiting physical caches in their parks. It may be acceptable to them, and it may be acceptable to a minority of geocachers, but I don't think it's good for the sport. Unfortunately this situation continues to crop up as park managers discover our sport and all its variations. It's a hard battle to fight.

Oh - I took that to mean that a minority of geocachers would be ok with certain parks only allowing virtuals instead of physical caches, not that a minority of geocachers liked virtuals. Maybe you are right, though.

[Keystone]

I wouldn't characterize the United States National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the sizeable group of other local, state and federal "virtual-only" policies in quite the same way as CR does. Other land managers can and do look at these examples when considering their own policies. What if another country's national lands suddenly became off-limits to everything except virtuals, and you had to get a permit even to place a virtual?

[+cache_test_dummies]

Do like we're done here, abandon the park system altogether.

CR - lets say you were given the opportunity to design the new GC.com virtual section. What would you do to handle these sort of land manager / park situations where only virtuals were allowed?

 

Would your rules disallow placement of virts in these parks to discourage this sort of land management control?

 

Not trying to be argumentative or anything, just interested in your viewpoint.

[+Team Tigger International]

I wouldn't characterize the United States National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the sizeable group of other local, state and federal "virtual-only" policies in quite the same way as CR does.  Other land managers can and do look at these examples when considering their own policies.  What if another country's national lands suddenly became off-limits to everything except virtuals, and you had to get a permit even to place a virtual?

Thats why I would think it would be best to "Work" with them. I really dont think the solution is to just ignore them . Just ignoring them would allow them to draw there own conclusions, based on who knows what , bad and good.

 

Star

[+erik88l-r]

C_T_D wrote:

 

Oh - I took that to mean that a minority of geocachers would be ok with certain parks only allowing virtuals instead of physical caches, not that a minority of geocachers liked virtuals. Maybe you are right, though.

 

What I meant was that a minority of geocachers might be fine with the park authority's limits, not that the minority liked virtuals.

 

Team Tigger Intl. wrote:

Thats why I would think it would be best to "Work" with them. I really dont think the solution is to just ignore them . Just ignoring them would allow them to draw there own conclusions, based on who knows what , bad and good.

 

That is indeed true, but we tend to assume that our sport is acceptable and adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy. Then when the park authorities learn of our caches there is often an understandably "knee jerk" reaction.

 

Here is an example:

 

New Sport Calls for New Guidelines on the National Forests

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

 

XXXXXX, Georgia August 4, 2004- Hiking, camping, bird watching….we’re all familiar with these popular activities that people enjoy on their national forests. However, there is a new recreational pursuit taking place on the National Forest that many of us haven’t heard of before, it’s called geocaching. Although the Forest Service encourages people to get out and enjoy their beautiful forest lands, when new recreation activities occur, sometimes new guidelines are required to ensure protection of the national forest resources.

 

So what is geocaching? According to Recreation Staff Officer XXXX  XXXX, geocaching is a cache-hunting activity for Global Positioning System (GPS) users. “I hadn’t heard of geocaching until two years ago,” XXXXX stated, “but it is becoming a popular sport for individuals and families all over the United States who have a GPS unit.” In fact, people in 199 countries participate in geocaching with over 86,936 caches and 100,000 participants worldwide.

 

Basically a combination of geography and hide and seek, how geocaching works is that an individual will select a location and set up a cache in a hidden spot (behind a tree, under a rock, etc). The cache is generally a small box (like a fishing tackle box or a small Tupperware container) that will contain a log in sheet for those who find the cache and small items that people can take with them from the box as a souvenir. The location of the cache is then publicized via the internet with coordinates using latitude and longitude along with a difficulty rating of terrain. Sometimes clues are given to help the user find the cache and sometimes finding the cache requires rock climbing, scuba diving, or tree climbing. After the individual locates the cache, they sign in and take a small item (pencils, maps, marbles, tickets) from the cache and leave a small item for the next person who finds it.

 

To keep up with this growing trend, the XXXXX National Forest managers have developed guidelines for geocaching within the national forest. The Forest Service is requiring individuals to pursue ‘virtual geocaching’ only on national forest lands in Georgia.

 

“Virtual geocaching is similar to physical geocaching,” XXXXX explained, “except there is no physical box or cache left on national forest lands.” Individuals still find a cache over the internet that they want to locate except that instead of a box or a container on the ground, the cache is a land feature such as a unique rock formation or a unusual tree configuration at a selected site. Those seeking this virtual cache still use the GPS unit and the clues to find the site, then they take a photo of themselves at the unique feature and send it into the internet site to prove that they made it to the location listed. “What we’ve found happening on the national forests,” stated XXXXX, “is that a few of the caches were left in inappropriate locations such as wilderness, and many of the caches were never removed after they stopped being publicized…so we have essentially abandoned materials being left on national forest lands.” The Forest Service has a policy in place to prevent dumping/littering within our national forests and therefore, the abandoned caches fall under this rule.

 

“Our intention is not to discourage people from participating in a geocaching activity on the national forests,” said XXXX, “our goal is to prevent litter or abandoned items from being left on the forest.”

 

If you have any questions regarding geocaching within the XXXXX National Forests please contact us at: XXX XXX XXXX or check out the national forest website at www.fs.fed.us/conf/.

 

That press release was never issued. I edited out some of the specifics as they are not relevant, could just as easily be the forest in your area. Our organization was able to meet with the park authorities and discuss our sport. Once they learned that virtual caches were really not an acceptable alternative in a forest environment, and that the existing physical caches caused a much lower impact than assumed, they were quite willing to discuss processes that both the rangers and geocachers could work with.

Working out the details of that is still in the works, but the press release is a good example of virtuals being seen as a more acceptable alternative. Were there no virtuals we would not have this uphill battle.

 

Virtuals have there place, IMHO, just not where they can be viewed as a safer choice by park managers.

 

~erik~

[CoyoteRed]

I wouldn't characterize the United States National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the sizeable group of other local, state and federal "virtual-only" policies in quite the same way as CR does. Other land managers can and do look at these examples when considering their own policies. What if another country's national lands suddenly became off-limits to everything except virtuals, and you had to get a permit even to place a virtual?

Are we going to "what if" the discussion to death?

 

What if when a land manager says that only virts can be placed in their park the geocacher asks about how the finder is supposed to verify the find? They gonna carve a code in a tree at that lookout? No. You look them in the eye and say a virtual will not work there and if they don't allow it it's no skin off your nose.

 

That's not to mention just what is the precentage of virts placed in large park systems versus the virts that can be placed outside the system. It wouldn't matter that NPS (which already had banned physicals yet the hobby is still growing), and every state and county park system banned caching completely it'd be only a tiny precentage of the possible locations for interesting virts.

 

Plus, that flies in the face of the new virt system Jeremy is supposed to be creating. How's that going to work? Would the ranger still present that as an option?

[+VegasCacheHounds]

It memorializes Shermans surrender to the Union Army.

That could have a real wow factor...unless it's a different Sherman. The one I'm thinking of was a Union General.

Aha! Thats the problem with the "Wow" factor! It makes no sense. To me, that memroial wouldn't have a whole lotta wow, but to a Civil War buff it would. Who can say what the Wow factor is for every cacher?

[+erik88l-r]

Plus, that flies in the face of the new virt system Jeremy is supposed to be creating. How's that going to work? Would the ranger still present that as an option?

 

I don't know the specifics of what Jeremy has in mind, but I've never had park authorities point to benchmark hunting or confluence hunting or locationless caches as alternatives to hunting physical caches, so there is hope that the two can coexist in a similar way.

 

 

~erik~

Edited March 4, 2005 by erik88l-r

[Tahosa and Sons]

The dirty little secret about virts is that it blocks future physical caches.

Think it was wrong then and I think that is wrong now.

Well said CR, I can clearly remember a discusion with Eric about 2 years ago and the harm that virtuals can do and old ghosts come alive again. Why is there the fear of land mangers when it comes to the placing of caches.

 

As much as I like a good virtual its a shame that I must go thru the trouble to create a multi so those that are infatutuated with trinkets must have their little container and log book.

 

I suppose its quite possible in the future that there will be a case of archive the earth cache even though the land manager says its ok to place a real cache there..

[CoyoteRed]

I've never had park authorities point to benchmark hunting or confluence hunting or locationless caches as alternatives to hunting physical caches...

We're not talking about hunting physical caches, we're talking about placing physical caches. You don't place a benchmark, confluence, or locationless.

[CoyoteRed]

...I can clearly remember a discusion with Eric about 2 years ago and the harm that virtuals can do and old ghosts come alive again.

Yeah, I bought into the reasoning back then about land managers and virts. I don't today.

[+erik88l-r]

Yeah, I bought into the reasoning back then about land managers and virts. I don't today.

 

Can't convince everyone, but the example I cited above was from last August, not two years ago. There is a battle brewing now at a much bigger park system, but we've been asked to keep it quite until the local geocaching organization can meet with TPTB there. It's scary how their version of a press release mirrored what I quoted above.

 

~erik~

[Keystone]

I wouldn't characterize the United States National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the sizeable group of other local, state and federal "virtual-only" policies in quite the same way as CR does.  Other land managers can and do look at these examples when considering their own policies.  What if another country's national lands suddenly became off-limits to everything except virtuals, and you had to get a permit even to place a virtual?

Are we going to "what if" the discussion to death?

 

What if when a land manager says that only virts can be placed in their park the geocacher asks about how the finder is supposed to verify the find? They gonna carve a code in a tree at that lookout? No. You look them in the eye and say a virtual will not work there and if they don't allow it it's no skin off your nose.

 

That's not to mention just what is the precentage of virts placed in large park systems versus the virts that can be placed outside the system. It wouldn't matter that NPS (which already had banned physicals yet the hobby is still growing), and every state and county park system banned caching completely it'd be only a tiny precentage of the possible locations for interesting virts.

I was not saying "what if?," I was instead alluding to a current real-life example, the same one that Erik mentions in his post. I've now cited to land manager policies in a half dozen significant jurisdictions, and I still haven't done any research to remind me of others.

 

Plus, that flies in the face of the new virt system Jeremy is supposed to be creating.  How's that going to work?  Would the ranger still present that as an option?

 

Again, like Erik said, there will be an advantage to breaking out virtuals and locationless into a separate game. They won't be "geocaches" anymore. When I approach a state park to hide a geocache, I'm talking about a container. I'll be able to say there's no such thing as a "virtual" geocache. The two can coexist next to each other, just like a benchmark and a geocache can peacefully coexist.

[+reveritt]

It memorializes Shermans surrender to the Union Army.

That could have a real wow factor...unless it's a different Sherman. The one I'm thinking of was a Union General.

Aha! Thats the problem with the "Wow" factor! It makes no sense. To me, that memroial wouldn't have a whole lotta wow, but to a Civil War buff it would. Who can say what the Wow factor is for every cacher?

I think the wow factor comes from the fact that Sherman apparently surrendered to his own army. This is not something you read about very often.

[+Prime Suspect]

It memorializes Shermans surrender to the Union Army.

That could have a real wow factor...unless it's a different Sherman. The one I'm thinking of was a Union General.

No, it was the other one.

 

[ju66l3r]

As Mopar and a half dozen other people love to point out...there are a number of other websites where you can place a virtual cache listing. If you suddenly said "GC.com will not allow virtuals because all of the park systems are requiring them in lieu of regular caches"...then the parks will say "We will only allow virtuals placed at waypoint.org...navicache.com...etc".

 

The concept of going to a waypoint and looking at something as opposed to going to a waypoint and pulling an ammo can from under a tree stump is not going to disappear regardless as to what this website wants or how it interacts with the park systems that choose not to allow box-based geocaching.

 

Those park systems that don't allow anything other than virtuals would rather just shut their doors completely to geocachers if the concept of "virtuals" could be erased in whole from the population's minds. Therefore, the fight is not "omg, they're forcing us to put virtuals because we gave them an out". The fight is "omg, they hate geocaching".

 

Focus your attention on the *real* problem and not the strawman that they have you fighting.

[Keystone]

As Mopar and a half dozen other people love to point out...there are a number of other websites where you can place a virtual cache listing. If you suddenly said "GC.com will not allow virtuals because all of the park systems are requiring them in lieu of regular caches"...then the parks will say "We will only allow virtuals placed at waypoint.org...navicache.com...etc".

 

The concept of going to a waypoint and looking at something as opposed to going to a waypoint and pulling an ammo can from under a tree stump is not going to disappear regardless as to what this website wants or how it interacts with the park systems that choose not to allow box-based geocaching.

 

Those park systems that don't allow anything other than virtuals would rather just shut their doors completely to geocachers if the concept of "virtuals" could be erased in whole from the population's minds. Therefore, the fight is not "omg, they're forcing us to put virtuals because we gave them an out". The fight is "omg, they hate geocaching".

 

Focus your attention on the *real* problem and not the strawman that they have you fighting.

Don't think for a minute that I and others don't approach the problem on both levels. In my dealings with state and local land managers in a half dozen states, both as a Groundspeak volunteer and as a cache hider, I do my very best to dispel the "we hate geocaching" attitude, first and foremost. It is my considered opinion, based on those conversations, that the process would be easier if I didn't need to contend with virtuals as an alternative. If your experience working with land managers and getting permission for cache hides has been different, I'd appreciate your sharing details.

[+erik88l-r]

Therefore, the fight is not "omg, they're forcing us to put virtuals because we gave them an out". The fight is "omg, they hate geocaching".

 

No, you're missing the point. They don't know enough about geocaching to hate it, they know just enough to see an easy alternative to something that they see as possibly risky to embrace.

 

I've met with park managers who had that misunderstanding and gotten them to see the light. One not only doesn't hate geocaching, but she e-mailed me yesterday asking when I'd be available to work with her to place a geocache in the park. The park already has a half dozen geocaches, but now she wants the park to have an official one that she can send visitors to hunt with a GPS she'll loan out. Gotta love it!

 

~erik~

Edited March 4, 2005 by erik88l-r

[+Camo-crazed]

It is my understanding that the .1 mile rule was establsihed to keep them far enough apart so people dont accidentally mistake one cache from another.

 

Perhaps virtuals should be exempt from the .1 mile rule. Whos is going to mistake an ammocan or a tupperware container for a stone monument?

That is my opinion as well and I would like to add fake coordinates to puzzle caches. However I think that physical caches should block virtuals because someoone could go around putting virts on the end point of multis or the final location of puzzle caches for osme weird reason.

[CoyoteRed]

If your experience working with land managers and getting permission for cache hides has been different, I'd appreciate your sharing details.

None of the land managers and owners I've dealt with even knew virtual caches existed, so it has not been an issue. The ranger I've talked to never mentioned virts to me, maybe because he was excited enough with geocaching that he's placed several of his own.

 

I don't think virts is the issue. It the lack of education of the folks that make the descision. Granted, I've never had to explain the difference between virts and physicals, but it shouldn't be that hard to see the concept differences.

[+Renegade Knight]

... On a larger scale it can block entire park systems from future caches, can result in existing physical caches being pulled...

This is why I would rather dump the entire catagory than lose traditional caches.

 

Virtuals do have a place, and they are a valid part of geocaching, and I'd like to see more flexability in placing them. But in the end, I'd rather find a box and when I have to make a choice it's easy.

[+erik88l-r]

I don't think virts is the issue. It the lack of education of the folks that make the descision.

 

You are correct in that if we'd had the initiative to approach land managers before putting out the first cache and explaining how it all works we'd have been better off in the long run. I'm as guilty as anyone else in assuming that it's easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.

 

It's pretty much a moot point now that the approval critiria has been "tightened", but before that occured many of those being approved seemed like another nail in the coffin of physical caches. Unlike physical caches, most seem to last forever too.

I guess that brings us full circle to the posting that started this thread - the few that are now approved should be truly unique and compelling.

 

~erik~

 

(edited to add another thought. )

Edited March 4, 2005 by erik88l-r

[CoyoteRed]

... On a larger scale it can block entire park systems from future caches, can result in existing physical caches being pulled...

This is why I would rather dump the entire catagory than lose traditional caches.

 

Virtuals do have a place, and they are a valid part of geocaching, and I'd like to see more flexability in placing them. But in the end, I'd rather find a box and when I have to make a choice it's easy.

I pretty much agree. I like hunting boxes, too.

 

If there was a viable depot for gee-whiz spots, like maybe "Geospotting.com" then this issue could go away. Virts aren't caches. (Micros are barely caches.)

 

I wouldn't mind a system where there wasn't any competative-type numbers, but the neat factor could be judged and when a virt fell below a certain level it went away. This would help deal with the sloppiness of listings and keep quality high.

[+erik88l-r]

I wouldn't mind a system where there wasn't any competative-type numbers, but the neat factor could be judged and when a virt fell below a certain level it went away. This would help deal with the sloppiness of listings and keep quality high.

 

Amen, brother.....

 

The closest we have to that is a requirement that the owners log onto the site regularly to show they're still active, but unless someone posts a "should be archived" note there is no way to monitor that.

 

~erik~

Edited March 4, 2005 by erik88l-r

[Keystone]

... On a larger scale it can block entire park systems from future caches, can result in existing physical caches being pulled...

This is why I would rather dump the entire catagory than lose traditional caches.

 

Virtuals do have a place, and they are a valid part of geocaching, and I'd like to see more flexability in placing them. But in the end, I'd rather find a box and when I have to make a choice it's easy.

I pretty much agree. I like hunting boxes, too.

 

If there was a viable depot for gee-whiz spots, like maybe "Geospotting.com" then this issue could go away. Virts aren't caches. (Micros are barely caches.)

 

I wouldn't mind a system where there wasn't any competative-type numbers, but the neat factor could be judged and when a virt fell below a certain level it went away. This would help deal with the sloppiness of listings and keep quality high.

CR, I think you'll like the design of the new game. Can't say much more than that , but be patient.

[+Blufwatch]

I feel like this sorta like people worrying about what is on TV or the radio, what you don't like don't watch or listen too so.... if someone does not like hunting virtuals, thats cool too, just don't.

Same for micros, the listings tell what kind of cache it is, so just choose what YOU like...

The only problem to me would be the blocking of another perhaps more attractive cache....one solution could be...just don't allow the same kind of cache within the same area, but don't block a trad with a virtual or vice versa....

 

I have enjoyed my virtual finds as much if not more than many micros (and I am not complaining about micros either)...

and even some others. Generally virtuals are interesting for one reason or the other. And not put somewhere just because its a good place to hide.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

CR, I think you'll like the design of the new game. Can't say much more than that  , but be patient.

 

New game??

[+trippy1976]

Other land managers can and do look at these examples when considering their own policies.

Excellent point.

 

This happens a lot. People will look through things and choose the safest route, especially if they are not completely "up" on the topic.

 

One thing we've done in Michigan to begin combating this is to develop a booklet that really delves into the subject of guidelines. Showing what's already done by default and providing examples of policies *we* would like more parks to embrace. This has been very successful.

 

One little park might not be a big deal, but if you get your state DNR and couty parks following a bad policy as an example - you're going to have a lot more work changing their minds than you would influencing them up front.

 

But I'm also not convinced that parks considering virtuals as the only allowed cache type in their park really care how hard or easy it is to "place" a virtual. And I also don't think they understand that dependant on what the virtual is, they may not be avoiding the thing that makes them adverse to regular caches - foot traffic in places they don't want foot traffic.

 

The best protection for a park is a solid policy that requires interaction with the unit manager. No fees, but input on where the cache will be located. Virtual or otherwise.

 

A point I keep harping on when talking to park systems is the fact that caching has been around since May 2000. This year will be the 5th year anniversary. Then I ask them, "When and how did you learn about caching?" A vast majority of the people I've spoken with have only learned about caching in the last year and usually from the media or a cacher coming to ask permission. Generally positive ways. The real point of the discussion is to illustrate that if we were not as vigilant with our guidelines as a community - they would have heard about it a looong time ago and in a negative way. The fact that it's going to be 5 years old and most are just now becoming aware of it speaks volumes for how well the "standard guidlines" are working.

 

I don't think there's a good solution to virtuals beyond completely scrapping the concept and rebuilding it as something seperate entirely. In the mean time, the guidelines in place currently seem to be working fantastically to guard against impropre placement and to gurantee some level of quality. I just wish there was a measure like "Wow" in place for traditionals. I'm not sure what I'd rather find - a grafittied park bench or a lamp post micro.

[+JoesBar]

OK, call me a simpleton. Go ahead. I like virtuals. But when I think of a virtual cache I think of a city area where there is no possible location for a real ammo can cache. I mean a nice sculpter, monument or architectural design. When I think of regual caches, I think of parks and other undevloped areas. I find it quite ironic that land managers find regular caches to be unacceptable. In NE Ohio we have a National Recreation Area. "Recreation" is in the description of the land. Yet geocaches are not allowed. Another local park district also has a no caches policy. It's OK to ride your horse, no offense intended, let it drop its "apples", ride your bike, hike the trails, run in the meadows, but placing a box 100ft, or less, off the trail is a no-no. Go figure! BTW, I have no interest in finding "the dead bird on the trail." That's lame.