Why "place" Virtuals?

2.2k · April 3, 2005

to add my own thoughts. vituals should have a good reason to exist ie the location really begs for a cache but for some good reason there is no way for a physical cache to be placed. that cuts out the lazy cache placers.

i know they are slightly diff from the original game but so? what does it matter if they exist alongside physicals on the listings? you don't want to do them? then don't. they have their own icon so you can easily avoid them. just like micros/urban etc etc.

each to their own. and so on. no reason to get all worked up we each play in our own way. as long as we play nice why do we need too many rules?

11.3k · April 3, 2005

Very well stated.

9.4k · April 3, 2005

to add my own thoughts. vituals should have a good reason to exist ie the location really begs for a cache but for some good reason there is no way for a physical cache to be placed. that cuts out the lazy cache placers.

I've said repeatedly I don't have a problem with that kind of virt.

First you decide on a location for your cache

Second you decide on the type of cache to place

Don't decide to place a virt, then find a location for it. That's what this is all about.

April 3, 2005

I have an underwater virtual that is in about 60' of water. It's a memorial marker that is very suprising to find. It does however require scuba training to get the smiley.

I have came up with an idea to place another underwater cache, only this will be a physical cache. Time will tell with that one.

But if you don't like them...Don't look for them and let them be.

I've seen some virtuals that were very impressive and some traditional caches that should have never been placed. It can go both ways.

April 3, 2005

I like Cheetos, I like them a lot.

Perhaps, but you should know that Cheetos never win.

April 3, 2005

I've seen some virtuals that were very impressive and some traditional caches that should have never been placed. It can go both ways.

Boy, is that the truth!

2.2k · April 3, 2005

BLAH BLAH BLAH...we hate virts......BLAH BLAH BLAH....place physicals instead.

There have been so many threads both for and against virts that it makes my head spin. Do we really need yet another? :rolleyes:

Edited April 3, 2005 by WH

6.5k · April 3, 2005

So that cachers who like to look for all kinds of caches can find them.

April 3, 2005

I like the thought of virts. I've only found one, but after surfing through them in my area on gc.com, I see the interest.

I love local history, and most of them are very historically related in some fashion.

1k · April 4, 2005

I've done a bunch of virtuals. I think I did about ten on the Las Vegas strip in two days. They were all lame, except for one, which took me on a really long walk to an interesting place that I would not have otherwise seen (and where a container was out of the question).

Virts are like micros--some are fun, some are pointless (kind of like forum posts).

1.2k · April 4, 2005

Forums been too quite for you lately, Saxy???

Edited April 4, 2005 by LaPaglia

April 4, 2005

I have done some interesting virtuals and some poor ones. I have done some interesting physical caches and some poor ones.

Second (third, fifth) verse same as the first on the virtuals discussion.

Is this another bet? Who won the trifecta? :lol:

Edited April 4, 2005 by zcubed

9.4k · April 4, 2005

Forums been too quite for you lately, Saxy???

Yeah, but at least I didn't make any bets about the replies I'd get :lol:

April 4, 2005

Here is an idea: Make all virts require a difficulty rating of at least a 3 and a terrain of 4. Then we will see how many people really care.

Hey GC, How about it?

I am tired of this reccuring subject.

3.9k · April 4, 2005

Here is an idea: Make all virts require a difficulty rating of at least a 3 and a terrain of 4. Then we will see how many people really care.
Hey GC, How about it?

I am tired of this reccuring subject.

There's a thought! We could apply those standards to all caches to satisfy the "I hate micros" crowd also.

Oh, just thought of something. We can setup PQ's to see only the types/sizes/minimum terrain settings so we see only those we want to see. That's right,we have ignores lists now too!

Why do we keep wanting somebody else to fix the "problem" when we have our own solution at the other end of our mouse cord?

2.2k · April 4, 2005

May as well add to my post count.

I like virtuals.

I don't think the .1 mile rule should apply to virtuals since there is no way a virtual could be mistaken for a physical cache.

I don't like puzzle caches, so should I start encouraging people who think about placing a puzzle cache to just post the normal coordinates?

2.3k · April 4, 2005

A little too much coffee this week Sax? Or just not enough ANGST in the forums? :lol:

Uhh...oh yeah.

On topic: Why not? Because we can? Virtuals make at least as much sense as 'virtually' finding a cache by logging it online. Why do we bother to do that in addition to signing a physical log? It's not like it's one of the rules or anything.

Next weeks ANGST ridden topic: people who don't log their DNF's in the physical log book. Be there.

3.9k · April 4, 2005

<snip>Next weeks ANGST ridden topic: people who don't log their DNF's in the physical log book. Be there.

LMAO! That one should have been posted on April 1st!!! (Along with YFTB's)

Edited April 4, 2005 by Moose Mob

9.4k · April 4, 2005

A little too much coffee this week Sax? Or just not enough ANGST in the forums?

<snip>

Next weeks ANGST ridden topic: people who don't log their DNF's in the physical log book. Be there.

They're on to me

4.8k · April 4, 2005

Next weeks ANGST ridden topic: people who don't log their DNF's in the physical log book. Be there.

That makes me so mad when they don't do that! <_<

1.1k · April 4, 2005

LOL this is just like when you slapped my had for lame caches, So now put out your hand and have it slapped, LOL.

Everyone likes something and hates others. Some places warrent a physical cache and other do not allow it. Go put a physical cache on the top of Longs Peak in RMNP, Opps you can't it is a NP. But you can put a virtual there. I have one cache it should be a virt but because of WOW factor what ever that IS, some subjective factor no has yet definded, I had to put a micro there. Now everyone that hates micros yell at me.

The problem I see with placing a container where you want a virtural is people get fixed on finding the container and miss the total reason why the cache was placed. Cachers have GPSr fixation got to find that logbook.

So in summary if you don't like virturals DON"T do them. But ohters do like them adn they are fun. I have not seen a lame one yet, but I have seen many lame traditonal and micro caches.

So what is the problem.

cheers

April 4, 2005

Yes. A box full of worthless trinkets hidden under a rock is far more interesting than a well thought out virtual.

It should all be part of the game. The potential tent is big...why seek to limit it?

April 4, 2005

Yes. A box full of worthless trinkets hidden under a rock is far more interesting than a well thought out virtual.

It should all be part of the game. The potential tent is big...why seek to limit it?

Well, one rather cynical, but entirely plausible, reason might be that virtual caches create very little demand for microcache capsules, fake rocks, cache labels, TB tags, etc. Bandwidth is expensive, you know ...

9.4k · April 4, 2005

LOL this is just like when you slapped my had for lame caches, So now put out your hand and have it slapped, LOL.
Everyone likes something and hates others. Some places warrent a physical cache and other do not allow it. Go put a physical cache on the top of Longs Peak in RMNP, Opps you can't it is a NP. But you can put a virtual there. I have one cache it should be a virt but because of WOW factor what ever that IS, some subjective factor no has yet definded, I had to put a micro there. Now everyone that hates micros yell at me.

The problem I see with placing a container where you want a virtural is people get fixed on finding the container and miss the total reason why the cache was placed. Cachers have GPSr fixation got to find that logbook.

So in summary if you don't like virturals DON"T do them. But ohters do like them adn they are fun. I have not seen a lame one yet, but I have seen many lame traditonal and micro caches.

So what is the problem.

cheers

But you see, if you only had a virt there, I'd never see it. By making it into a micro, I'll look for it if Im in the area. Before/during/after the hunt, I'll take a look at the "interesting" object nearby your cache. I'll spend more time looking at the object you want me to look at than the plaque attached to it. Yes, virtuals actually focus on the plaque rather than the interesting object. Without virtuals, we aren't distracted by looking up dates or other number on the plauque.

20.7k · April 4, 2005

...First you decide on a location for your cache
Second you decide on the type of cache to place

Don't decide to place a virt, then find a location for it. That's what this is all about.

I started reading through this thread and couldn't believe how little I cared about it. It started as just another 'I don't like this kind of cache, so everybody who does is wrong' kind of thread. It unfolded rather predictibly.

I thought for a while that the only comment that I would strongly agree with was the one about Cheetoes.

It was with some surprise that I agreed with the blue guy's comments, quoted above.

The idea that a trad cache should be able to bump a cache is rediculous to me, as is the one last week that regular-sized caches should bump micros. The game has been in play for years now. If one wanted to place a regular cache in a location, one could have done it.

Edited April 4, 2005 by sbell111

20.7k · April 4, 2005

But you see, if you only had a virt there, I'd never see it. By making it into a micro, I'll look for it if Im in the area. ...

Using this same logic, no one should place any really difficult caches because some people won't be able to see the location. All caches are not for everyone. If you decide not to look for virts, you know that you will miss some good locations.

This is the same argument made a few weeks ago regarding micros. Some are lame, but if a person stops looking for all micros, they will miss some good ones.

Is that a big problem? I don't think so.

3.9k · April 4, 2005

If it were a start point for a multi or a puzzle cache instead of a good history based virtual, then I would miss it if I were on a road trip.

Virtuals offer good history lessons. If a person choses not to read the plaque, then they will not do so. Searching for a micro would be just as much thier goal, and they would not see the plaque.

9.4k · April 4, 2005

But you see, if you only had a virt there, I'd never see it. By making it into a micro, I'll look for it if Im in the area. ...

Using this same logic, no one should place any really difficult caches because some people won't be able to see the location. All caches are not for everyone. If you decide not to look for virts, you know that you will miss some good locations.

No, challenging caches are about ability, not desire.

I have no desire to hunt for the historical markers, etc, that make up most virts while geocaching. I go to those places on my own, not as a geocacher.

As a geocacher, I'm looking for a container at a particular set of coords. Whatever else i find in the area (even if it's a historical marker) is a bonus to my geocaching experience.

See the difference?

20.7k · April 4, 2005

I see that you are making a choice to skip places that may (or may not) interest you. I doubt that anyone has a problem with you doing this, as long as you don't.

22.1k · April 4, 2005

Yes. A box full of worthless trinkets hidden under a rock is far more interesting than a well thought out virtual.

It should all be part of the game. The potential tent is big...why seek to limit it?

Well, one rather cynical, but entirely plausible, reason might be that virtual caches create very little demand for microcache capsules, fake rocks, cache labels, TB tags, etc. Bandwidth is expensive, you know ...

If this were true, then why has Groundspeak invested a year's worth of programming resources into a new game that won't involve cache containers, labels or travel bugs?

3.9k · April 4, 2005

Yes. A box full of worthless trinkets hidden under a rock is far more interesting than a well thought out virtual.

It should all be part of the game. The potential tent is big...why seek to limit it?

Well, one rather cynical, but entirely plausible, reason might be that virtual caches create very little demand for microcache capsules, fake rocks, cache labels, TB tags, etc. Bandwidth is expensive, you know ...

If this were true, then why has Groundspeak invested a year's worth of programming resources into a new game that won't involve cache containers, labels or travel bugs?

Since we don't know what this will look like when it's done, we can only make assumptions...

Will this be more like how we see benchmarks? As a different catagory, but most/different/other features that we have with physical caches?

The mind wanders to...

- Answer questions online without the extra steps to e-mail the owner.

- E-mail answer screen

- Photo uploads/attachment to owner's account.

- Will it include Webcam caches?

Questions arise as to migrating existing virst/locationless/earthcahes.

No wonder it took a year (plus adding attributes etc etc)

3.8k · April 4, 2005

But you see, if you only had a virt there, I'd never see it...

To me, this sounds like a personal problem (your personal problem). It's kind of like me saying, "I hope you don't say anything worthwhile because I won't see it because I refuse to read forum posts written in blue." <_<

9.4k · April 4, 2005

But you see, if you only had a virt there, I'd never see it...

To me, this sounds like a personal problem (your personal problem). It's kind of like me saying, "I hope you don't say anything worthwhile because I won't see it because I refuse to read forum posts written in blue."

I wouldn't see the virtual site as a geocacher. I might see it on my own someday, but I won't search for a virt as a geocache.

3.8k · April 4, 2005

But you see, if you only had a virt there, I'd never see it...

To me, this sounds like a personal problem (your personal problem). It's kind of like me saying, "I hope you don't say anything worthwhile because I won't see it because I refuse to read forum posts written in blue."

I wouldn't see the virtual site as a geocacher. I might see it on my own someday, but I won't search for a virt as a geocache.

"Tough Nuts!" <_<

April 4, 2005

I wouldn't see the virtual site as a geocacher. I might see it on my own someday, but I won't search for a virt as a geocache.

So what.

Unless I am mistaken, no one is required to seek out any cache, virtual or otherwise.

So, if you don't want to look for 'em, you don't have to.

Your line of argument reminds me of an evangelical atheist. No one tells you that you have to believe, and yet you feel compelled to convince those who do believe that they should not. Frickin' why?

Simple solution to the virtual issue:

1. If you don't like them, don't seek them out.

2. Virtuals should be approved.

3. Virtuals should not count against traditionals that are or could be placed in the same or nearby location.

Why is this such an issue?

Edited April 4, 2005 by Lawcomic

3.9k · April 4, 2005

In a couple of minutes, your parents are going to walk in and send you all to your rooms.

9.4k · April 4, 2005

Simple solution to the virtual issue:

1. If you don't like them, don't seek them out.

2. Virtuals should be approved.

3. Virtuals should not count against traditionals that are or could be placed in the same or nearby location.

Why is this such an issue?

If part 3 were in effect, you would have a hard time finding anyone that had a problem with virtuals. Alas, that is not the way of the world.

11.3k · April 4, 2005

I wouldn't see the virtual site as a geocacher. I might see it on my own someday, but I won't search for a virt as a geocache.

What an odd attitude. <_<

The Virtual I found the other day was very interesting, but I would never have known of that little plaque's presence, or significance, if it hadn't been a Geocache.

Are you just playing "Devil's advocate" to up all of our post counts?

April 4, 2005

Which begs the question....Why isn't part 3 in effect?

9.4k · April 4, 2005

I wouldn't see the virtual site as a geocacher. I might see it on my own someday, but I won't search for a virt as a geocache.

What an odd attitude.

The Virtual I found the other day was very interesting, but I would never have known of that little plaque's presence, or significance, if it hadn't been a Geocache.

Are you just playing "Devil's advocate" to up all of our post counts?

Ok, I like football. I watch football on TV. I go to football games. Etc...

I don't go to football games to hear about baseball. Baseball is a different sport. If I wanted to hear about baseball, I'd go to a baseball game.

I like geocaching. I go geocaching to find caches. Many times those caches take me to interesting places I wouldn't have found without geocaching. I place caches. Etc.

I don't go caching to hear about virts. Virts are a different game. If I wanted to hear about virts I'd go to a site that specializes in them, like waypoint.org.

I know, it isn't a perfect analogy, in fact there aren't any perfect ones. But do you get the point behind it?

3.8k · April 4, 2005

OK, Sax, so what's the right answer? Why do geocachers place virtuals? What's the perfect solution, as you see it? <_<

3k · April 4, 2005

But do you get the point behind it?

Are you saying that a virt is not a 'geocache' and therefore it makes no sense to place one or find one while 'geoaching'? Is this just a matter of semantics?

April 4, 2005

Ok, I like football. I watch football on TV. I go to football games. Etc...

I don't go to football games to hear about baseball. Baseball is a different sport. If I wanted to hear about baseball, I'd go to a baseball game.

I like geocaching. I go geocaching to find caches. Many times those caches take me to interesting places I wouldn't have found without geocaching. I place caches. Etc.

[/url]

So are you saying a stadium should not allow baseball games if it also allows football games?

You can go to the stadium only on the days they play football...or, if so inclined, attend all activities there.

Are you saying the venue should only be limited to one specific activity...or should it actually be more functional and provide opportunities for fans of many variations of sport?

9.4k · April 4, 2005

But do you get the point behind it?

Are you saying that a virt is not a 'geocache' and therefore it makes no sense to place one or find one while 'geoaching'?

Yes!

The idea behind a geocache is to hide something from Muggles so that only geocachers find it.

The idea behind a virtual is to waypoint a pre-existing object that Muggles see (and likely ignore) everyday.

Is this just a matter of semantics?

Nope, not just semantics

3.9k · April 4, 2005

9.4k · April 4, 2005

Ok, I like football. I watch football on TV. I go to football games. Etc...

I don't go to football games to hear about baseball. Baseball is a different sport. If I wanted to hear about baseball, I'd go to a baseball game.

I like geocaching. I go geocaching to find caches. Many times those caches take me to interesting places I wouldn't have found without geocaching. I place caches. Etc.

[/url]

So are you saying a stadium should not allow baseball games if it also allows football games?

You can go to the stadium only on the days they play football...or, if so inclined, attend all activities there.

Are you saying the venue should only be limited to one specific activity...or should it actually be more functional and provide opportunities for fans of many variations of sport?

I didn't say a word about stadiums. You took that analogy in the complete opposite direction. I'm referring to the game itself, not the players or the stadiums.

Like I said, there are no perfect analogies, they're only meant to get the general point across. Like, when you go to a website for gardening, do you want a popup window to offer cheap kitchen cabinets? Maybe they're both in the "home improvement" category, but they're completely different subjects.

It's the same way with geocaches and virtuals. Both are games you can play with your GPS, but they have a completely different focus. One involves hiding things from Muggles, the other involves highlighting objects Muggles see everyday.

2.2k · April 4, 2005

'nuff said.

9.4k · April 4, 2005

OK, Sax, so what's the right answer? Why do geocachers place virtuals? What's the perfect solution, as you see it?

The "perfect solution" as virtuals exist on this site now, is that virtuals are not allowed as a first choice in placing a cache. The idea behind this site is to place containers hidden from Muggle view. The first choice when placing a cache should always be that.

If the site can not support a physical cache, and the site is interesting enough to bring other cachers to, then it could be a candidate for a virtual.

3k · April 4, 2005

But do you get the point behind it?

Are you saying that a virt is not a 'geocache' and therefore it makes no sense to place one or find one while 'geoaching'?

Yes!

The idea behind a geocache is to hide something from Muggles so that only geocachers find it.

My view of the idea behind a geocache is to list (on a geocaching listing web site), or find, a location.

Somtimes there will be a physical container at the location, sometimes there won't be.

I personally think of them all as 'geocaches' if they are listed on Geocaching.com, even event 'caches'.

3k · April 4, 2005

The idea behind this site is to place containers hidden from Muggle view. The first choice when placing a cache should always be that.

I have a different view of the idea behind this site. Perhaps that view will change when the new virtual listing features are made available, or perhaps that view will become reinforced. I'll just wait and see.

Why "place" Virtuals?

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation