Virtual & "vacation" Caches.

May 23, 2005

Why not have virtual caches? Why not place virtual caches while on vacation? We live in London and travel to Europe often. We love finding caches in other countries because caches bring us to places that are unique, beautiful or compelling. That is what geocaching is all about. That is why we all love this game, sport or whatever you want to name it.

There is nothing better than planning a trip to Rome or Paris or Warsaw and researching the caches there, letting the caches lead you through a place that is new to you. It makes visitors feel like they are not so alone in a foreign place, that the geocaching community is worldwide. But if todays rules were in place years ago, most of the caches in these places would not exist. There are almost no caches in Rome and Warsaw that were placed by locals. In Paris, most caches were placed a long time ago by visitors, cachers on vacation. For some reason only northern Europeans are caching and placing caches. In central and southern Europe, things are different. In these places not much geocaching is happening. Even in the USA, what if new rules applied, there would be no caches at the Grand Canyon. No caches in Yellowstone or Yosemite Parks. That is crazy! These are some of the most beautiful places on earth, there should be caches there.

Guidelines say physical caches are prefered over virtual ones. Well, we have found many caches that are rusty tins shoved in bushes surrounded by rubbish. These caches are approved without delay. But when you try to get a cache approved over-looking Half Dome or the Grand Canyon or the Notre Dame and you are put through the inquisition. We would much rather find a virtual cache that brings us to a viewpoint that we may not have found then to find a tupperware container in the hedges of a field. This is ridiculous.

We recently submitted a virtual cache at the Grand Canyon. The reviewer told us we could not do this because we live in England. Fine, we got two, not one but two, local geocachers to look after the cache for us. The reviewer then told us that he could not accept it because it was a virtual cache of a view and this is not acceptable. Thinking like this would prohibit caches at places like the Acropolis in Greece, the Coliseum in Rome and the Great Wall of China. This is losing site of the reason for caching, this is crazy. Caching is about experiencing places, not finding "treasures" that consist of molding trinkets and key-rings. Perhaps Jeremy, cachers and geocaching.com should re-examine what this is game about. We are hopeful they will.

May 23, 2005

The grand Canyon seems like Grand candidate for an Earthcache!

Earthcache.org

22.1k · May 23, 2005

There are several responses, most or all of which will become moot very quickly when the new solution for virtual and locationless caches is rolled out. But for a short remaining time, virtual caches are geocaches instead of being a separate activity, and they're subject to the current rules for geocaches. The thinking behind the guidelines for "vacation virtuals" is that Virtuals need maintenance, too. There are dozens of examples where a virtual cache target is removed, or access to the area is restricted, etc. A local geocacher would know about this, just as they would if one of their physical geocaches had a problem.

May 23, 2005

"The thinking behind the guidelines for "vacation virtuals" is that Virtuals need maintenance, too. There are dozens of examples where a virtual cache target is removed, or access to the area is restricted, etc. A local geocacher would know about this, just as they would if one of their physical geocaches had a problem."

There is a simple solution to this - when a cacher can not find the virtual the cache owner will know when he logs a did not find. Just as if a real cache goes missing, the cache owner will know about when someone tries to find it and it is not there.

This is not rocket-science people, it is a way to try to get enjoyment out of life. Why try to hinder that?

7.2k · May 23, 2005

The thinking behind the guidelines for "vacation virtuals" is that Virtuals need maintenance, too. There are dozens of examples where a virtual cache target is removed, or access to the area is restricted, etc.

Here are several examples, which I have posted before.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...e5-14d0511866b4

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...92-7cb269983e3f

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...45-8d07ecfe7275

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...dc-b55cec8d325f

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...731&LID=4613723

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...bc-2140a8bad990

and one of my favorites...

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d4-f6f6f8a92550

The target of this cache was sold on eBay no less.

I can go on, but I will stop there.

7.2k · May 23, 2005

There is a simple solution to this - when a cacher can not find the virtual the cache owner will know when he logs a did not find. Just as if a real cache goes missing, the cache owner will know about when someone tries to find it and it is not there.

This is not rocket-science people, it is a way to try to get enjoyment out of life. Why try to hinder that?

So you want other people to do the work for you. It does not work that way. You need to maintain your own caches.

May 23, 2005

I think the main reason is that only very rarely is there no room for a physical cache in the same place as you might try to put a virtual. Even if it's just a micro, a traditional cache is better than a virtual.

11.3k · May 23, 2005

2.6k · May 23, 2005

But when you try to get a cache approved over-looking Half Dome or the Grand Canyon or the Notre Dame and you are put through the inquisition.

Nobody expects the Irish inquisition!

May 23, 2005

(Excuse that I do not know how to use the cut and paste and that emoticons, These things do not matter to me.

"mtn-man-Here are several examples, which I have posted before."

Examples of archived virtual caches do not matter, I can give you just as many archived real caches.

"mtn-man - So you want other people to do the work for you. It does

not work that way. You need to maintain your own caches."

How do you maintain a permanent information board? Does it matter if you are near it or not? Correct, it does not matter.

"Divine - Nobody expects the Irish inquisition! "

At least of all me! And don't tell me anything different, Bruce!

Cheers!

May 23, 2005

I tried to add a couple of virtual caches in the Dominican Republic where I used to live a few months ago. I thought I was being clever requiring facts to be collected at the locations in order to log them. And I made sure they were things that would not be moved, (like the first catholic church in the western hemisphere). But I was denied for being on vacation.

Meanwhile on the same trip, I spent time looking for a cache outside the wall of an all-inclusive snob resort that was a gutter and couldn't find the cache. But the site says it can't archive that cache since the owner hasn't logged on for a few years. My guess is the resort actually cleaned something outside their walls.

My 0.02.

7.2k · May 23, 2005

How do you maintain a permanent information board? Does it matter if you are near it or not? Correct, it does not matter.

A public information board is not a geocache. You are talking apples and baseballs. (What I mean by that is that they are not even remotely in the same family.)

All of this does not matter anyway since the site will be changing soon.

11.3k · May 23, 2005

(Excuse that I do not know how to use the cut and paste and that emoticons, These things do not matter to me.

. .

There is a button in the upper right-hand corner of each post you can use to properly quote another person's post.

But, it seems that is not the only thing that doesn't matter to you . . .

If the site has certain rules about Virtual caches and Vacation caches that everyone else adheres to, shouldn't those rules apply to you as well? And if not, why not?

24.7k · May 23, 2005

I did a virtual cache once. The verification was twofold (one was easy to guess). One part was changed out one day and just like that the virtual cache needed to be "maintained." Meaning I had to get my butt over to it and figure out why nobody could tell me the right answers anymore. Then I found out they had changed out the signs. It happens and that's why you need to be able to "maintain" the cache. Not because they change often, but because they do change on occasion and if they do, you need to do some legwork to correct your virtual cache.

Edited May 23, 2005 by Renegade Knight

1.4k · May 23, 2005

With you all the way on this Jessex - in the "good old days" virts and holiday caches were allowed but gradually the rules changed to make the game more and more restrictive.

There seemed to be a problem (mostly in the U.S.) with people placing Lame virtuals. In order to combat this the rules for virts were changed. Placing lame physicals seems to be OK its jut virts that have been singled out. In my view a rubbish cache is a rubbish cache be it virt,physical,multi,mystery,whatever.

I have never understood the obsesion with physicals - but then I have always believed that "the real treasure is the location" . We are promised a new solution for virts and locationless but why they will no longer be counted as "real" caches anymore is a mistery to me.

Ho hum

Chris

18.9k · May 23, 2005

To me, the biggerst problem with most virtuals (that existed before the newish guidelines) is that many really don't require a GPS. For example, a statue, a marker, a scenic overlook. I agree that these things are just not a "geocache". Hopefully the new solution [forthcoming soon] will allow a methodology for these unique areas.

May 23, 2005

Just to pop in my information as well, I have also explained to the owner that with less then 2 minutes time on google, I sent one of the answers to him in email. I do believe that not being able to find the answers online is a very important part of the ruling.

As for asking someone to maintain it for you, the person selected in this case has not cached since July of 2004. Part of being responsible for a cache does include actually caching once in a while.

The guidelines state 'A view is a view, the location of the virtual cache should be novel and have WOW factor'

So I have to ask, is the sign you want information from all that impressive? No you want people to see the grand canyon. Well the grand canyon already has many virtuals listed, so what is the difference with looking at it from there location or yours?

If this was the first virtual to be listed there it would be different, but since many cachers before you who lived thousands of miles closer were told the same information, why is it different for you?

Please, help me understand what is unique about standing at that sign that people will not see while claiming the other multitude of virtuals in the area?

Or is it just for the view of the location?

1.4k · May 23, 2005

To me, the biggerst problem with most virtuals (that existed before the newish guidelines) is that many really don't require a GPS.

Ahhh, but that aplies to 90% of the caches in central london as well (physical and virts) should they be banned too?

11.3k · May 23, 2005

To me, the biggerst problem with most virtuals (that existed before the newish guidelines) is that many really don't require a GPS.

Ahhh, but that aplies to 90% of the caches in central london as well (physical and virts) should they be banned too?

That's too bad. I don't think there has been a single cache I've found that could have been found without the benefit of my GPSr, including a couple of Virtuals.

Even with the GPSr, I've managed to not find quite a few caches.

May 23, 2005

I don't think there has been a single cache I've found that could have been found without the benefit of my GPSr, including a couple of Virtuals.

There is more than one geocacher who enjoys the hobby/sport/activity without a GPSr and aren't having any trouble finding them. The vast majority of caches are entirely possible with the right maps and the skill to use them correctly.

As for the main topic of Virtuals, I think they should be allowed. If some new scheme is coming then that's great but when? A system for locationless ones was supposed to come along how long ago now? A year? Two? I've lost track. I know implementing a new system takes time but while we wait we lose out.

18.9k · May 23, 2005

As for the main topic of Virtuals, I think they should be allowed. If some new scheme is coming then that's great but when? A system for locationless ones was supposed to come along how long ago now? A year? Two? I've lost track. I know implementing a new system takes time but while we wait we lose out.

New options for virtuals was due in May but has slipped into June to allow further tweaking (last I heard).

May 23, 2005

Perhaps we would be happier if we understood what the new system is planning to include....

20.7k · May 23, 2005

My understanding is that it will include locationless as well as virtual caches. :blink:

May 23, 2005

I did a virtual cache once. The verification was twofold (one was easy to guess). One part was changed out one day and just like that the virtual cache needed to be "maintained." Meaning I had to get my butt over to it and figure out why nobody could tell me the right answers anymore. Then I found out they had changed out the signs. It happens and that's why you need to be able to "maintain" the cache. Not because they change often, but because they do change on occasion and if they do, you need to do some legwork to correct your virtual cache.

That may be the case, but who's to say that you won't be able to do this?

There's a few examples of physical caches not being maintained, I think it's a little presumptuous to assume that a virtual cannot be maintained - for a start you dn;t know the person's network of friends/family.

Secondly a well thought out virtual is highly unlikely to change - think of the various historical monuments. If they ever moved it would make the news around the world.

Personally I like a combination of both and I'd much rather a good virtual than a poor physical. Many get around it by placing a film canister with a roll of paper as a log, how is this better than a virtual that requires the finder to answer questions you can only answer by being there? And don't get me started on the number of caches that contain a tube of superglue, an old beaten up toy car and a couple of dirty hairclips as "treasure"

May 23, 2005

I once tried to have a virtual cache but got denied also. Now the neat thing about this cache was you were required to take a picture of it at 65 Miles per hour.

The approver told me that he would approve it if there was at least a micro at the sight. There were two problems with that. It would be illegal to stop the car at the location where the virtual would be most appreciated. The second problem is you could have a micro on the virtual, but then you wouldn't be able to see it because you would be on it.

The virtual was a futuristic looking bridge that won the "most beautiful bridge" title back in the 60's. It was over the Natcher parkway, and you needed to be driving under it to see it, as the land surrounding it was all private.

As far as I am concerned, having a micro is just a waste of time and adds nothing to the hunt. The micro itself does nothing for me and added nothing to the experience, and was impossible at that location anyway.

One could put any type of cache on their own personal website if they wish, among other options so I guess it doesn't really matter much.

Just my .02 please don't flame me.

Thanks.

May 23, 2005

Remember, the website isn't called 'GeoVirtual.com". Maybe TPTB are just trying to put the 'cache' back into 'geocache'.

20.7k · May 24, 2005

I have a fridge in my office, so I have a tendency to just bring sandwich makings and some potato or macaroni salad so I can eat lunch without having to go out for lunch and spend a bunch of cash. Anyway, this afternoon I was putting a sandwich together and I discovered that I was all out of cheese.

I apologize, but if I still had some I would offer it to you. :blink:

9.4k · May 24, 2005

May 24, 2005

I gotta say, the liking for "locationless", "virtual", etc caches have always kinda baffled me. I want coordinates to go somewhere and find a cleverly hidden container with a logbook in it that I can sign. There's no "cache" in a lovely vista overlooking a particularly appealing stand of spruce trees, or whatever. I can see having a "nifty vistas" or "points of interest" section for non-real-cache coordinates.

May 24, 2005

I am fairly new to the geocaching scene but would like to put my two cents in on this topic.

I had been caching approximately one month when I went on a buisness trip to Dallas Texas. On this trip I decided to do a little caching but did not have a rental car to drive to many caches. The majority of caches within walking distance of my hotel were virtuals. Having been to Dallas numerous times I did not expect to find anything spectacular or that I hadn't already seen. I was very supprised to locate two virtuals that were really impressive. I am willing to bet that many people living and working in that part of Dallas did not no that these sites existed. These virtuals just added to my appreciation of caching.

If I were to rank my caching experience I would rank these two virtuals in my top caches. They were much more exiting to find and view than many ammo cans tucked under a tree with McJunk inside it.

I also do lots of caching with my Kids and it never hurts to show them an historic place, nice piece of Art or engineering or even a view.

I do not understand the problem with posting a virtual while on vacation. It is fairly obvious that something has changed at the site if several DNF occur in a row and in MHO a virtual is less likely to go missing that any traditional cache.

I believe that with a little effort and ingenuity a a virtual can be just as difficult to find ( or the information used to verify the virtual) Just like any other cache the more thought put into it the better the experience.

Tanisdad :blink:

24.7k · May 24, 2005

.... I think it's a little presumptuous to assume that a virtual cannot be maintained - for a start you dn;t know the person's network of friends/family.

Secondly a well thought out virtual is highly unlikely to change - think of the various historical monuments. If they ever moved it would make the news around the world. ...

The point was that they do need maintained. Not to say it can't be done or that any one person couldn't do it at all. As for historical monuments. I get to destroy them with some regularity in my job. Call it a perk. No it's not common but it does happen so maintainablity is an issue.

As for virtuals themselves I agree with you. A good virtual is better than a crappy traditional but. that's another topic.

11.3k · May 24, 2005

. . . As for virtuals themselves I agree with you. A good virtual is better than a crappy traditional but. that's another topic.

The few virtuals I have done have been much more memorable and enjoyable than several of the last few traditionals I have found.

I didn't get a flat tire going to any of the Virtuals.
I learned something from each of the Virtuals.
I didn't have to endure that musty, moldy odor finding the Virtuals.

I'm not opposed to Virtuals and am looking forward to seeing the way the site incorporates them in their new incarnation.

However, I don't like the idea of someone "maintaining" a Virtual from hundreds or thousands of miles away without a local cacher to help with any maintenance issues that might arise.

2.7k · May 24, 2005

Jessex I'm in total agreement with you. Its a crying shame that they have been blinded by their search for trinkets.

If and when they get the new site up and running for virtuals, please get ahold of me and we will see if we can co-plant a new one. Just something to think about.

May 24, 2005

Jessex I'm in total agreement with you. Its a crying shame that they have been blinded by their search for trinkets.

If and when they get the new site up and running for virtuals, please get ahold of me and we will see if we can co-plant a new one. Just something to think about.

Everyone is blinded by something. Some are blinded by the status quo. Others are blinded by the belief that their desires are sufficient reason to change established rules. The ironic part is that the one thing to which we are all blind is our own blindness.

4.8k · May 24, 2005

I hate to enter virtual angst, but I will. I have only once found a virtual cache that I felt was truly worth the smilie/find. There are also about 5-6 borderline ones for me. I didn't love them but liked them and would not have found them otherwise. On many other occassions, I logged the find, but did not really feel like I "found" something and often rolled my eyes over it, either because it had little value info wise or because any person in the area would see it anyway. Shortly after, I quit looking for many/most of them altogether and filtered them out of pocket queries. Many were simply things I would see anyway and I decided that looking was a waste of time. Why should I get a "cache" find for something I would likely visit anyway? It is not a "cache." Usually there is no real seeking needed and it is just some sort of area that is easy to find. People here love to complain about "lame" micros. Well at least there is something to be found there and if it is in a good spot then I love it. I know others disagree, but for me if there is nothing physical to find it is not a "cache." That is why I over time quit seeking and logging virts.

I did like the idea of locationless caches since that could provide a traveler with info about specific targets they would like to see. Yet, I also never saw those as "caches" and logged only one on a whim. I did use a few for info though of places to visit (butterfly gardens comes to mind).

The OP noted that the virt was at the Grand Canyon and another noted that there were already many virts in the area (likely grandfathered). Why add more? It is not like the area is hard to find. Is the target a hard to find and really unique item? Then I could see it, but if not then it is just junk in my mind that clutters things up. If I go to the Grand Canyon, it will be to see it and I don't need a virt to get there. If there is some unique thing I might miss, then yes, I would like to know about it and would feel happy about logging the virt.

I know that people would like to point others to locations. But I just don't see that as the same as "caches." I see it as tourist or helpful info, but not really cache finding. I hope the new thing coming soon will do that. Then maybe people will be happy.

I suggest waiting a few more weeks and seeing if you can post your coords in the new game. If not, then post info on area tourist boards about it.

3.8k · May 24, 2005

Hey! Can I get some of that? :blink:

May 24, 2005

Hey pass the popcorn :blink:

9.4k · May 24, 2005

Part of geocaching is finding a container that's hidden from Muggle view. If they only knew what they were walking right by...

With virtuals, you're not doing anything "secret", there's no thrill to just visit some tourist spot listed in the AAA guidebook. You're really just waypointing things that most Muggles ignore. It's not that they don't know about these statues and historical places, they just choose not to visit them.

4.1k · May 24, 2005

Jeremy...could you include this little guy in our Smilies list? & maybe even as a Frog?

Back on topic...I for one, am very curious as to the difference that the 'New' virts & locationless are going to be handled. We signed up after the Locationless had been shut out for posting & would like to try our hand at a couple. So....come on June...we are awaiting.

Shirley~

1.4k · May 24, 2005

Part of geocaching is finding a container that's hidden from Muggle view. If they only knew what they were walking right by...

With virtuals, you're not doing anything "secret", there's no thrill to just visit some tourist spot listed in the AAA guidebook.

I'm constantly surprised what people get out of this hobby - I've never thought of their being a "secret thrill" in caching.

Different folks, different strokes I guess.

38.2k · May 24, 2005

essex I'm in total agreement with you. Its a crying shame that they have been blinded by their search for trinkets.

I don't think its the search for trinkets. Its the search period. Of the virtuals I've found, I can only think of one

where I didn't walk up and spot the target from hundreds of feet away. There isn't much of a challenge in that.

Edited May 24, 2005 by briansnat

May 24, 2005

What are the new proposed guidelines for virtuals, anyway?

May 24, 2005

Well the grand canyon already has many virtuals listed, so what is the difference with looking at it from there location or yours?

You miss the point completely. This topic is not about my proposed cache, that was archived, this thread is about virtuals and vacation caches in general.

May 24, 2005

Jessex I'm in total agreement with you. Its a crying shame that they have been blinded by their search for trinkets.

If and when they get the new site up and running for virtuals, please get ahold of me and we will see if we can co-plant a new one. Just something to think about.

Thanks Tahosa and Sons, I will do just that!

May 24, 2005

I recently tried to "place" a virtual to call attention to a Native American who played a key role in the settlement of my area. A monument to him had long gone untended until a local Eagle Scout took on the project of its restoration. Although I considered it, there was nowhere at the actual site to place even the smallest of micros without disturbing the ecology. When I submitted the cache as a virtual, it was initially denied, but my reviewer suggested revising it into a multi or puzzle cache. I'm happy to say that "To Honor Soo-too-lick" now draws cachers to the monument as well as providing a physical cache at the end of its puzzle.

11.3k · May 25, 2005

That is what I did with one of my caches.

I'm glad you were able to do that "To Honor Soo-too-lick."

May 25, 2005

My favourite virtual is Last stop for a weary traveller. I think this ranks as a WOW and has a test that the majority of visiters and locals do not know about, would not stumble upon or have even seen.

May 25, 2005

I recently tried to "place" a virtual to call attention to a Native American who played a key role in the settlement of my area. A monument to him had long gone untended until a local Eagle Scout took on the project of its restoration. Although I considered it, there was nowhere at the actual site to place even the smallest of micros without disturbing the ecology. When I submitted the cache as a virtual, it was initially denied, but my reviewer suggested revising it into a multi or puzzle cache. I'm happy to say that "To Honor Soo-too-lick" now draws cachers to the monument as well as providing a physical cache at the end of its puzzle.

Imagine that! The best of both worlds!

Congrats to you. A little open-minded creativity is a wonderful thing. I hope others follow your example.

Salvelinus

7.2k · May 25, 2005

My favourite virtual is Last stop for a weary traveller. I think this ranks as a WOW and has a test that the majority of visiters and locals do not know about, would not stumble upon or have even seen.

I had the distinct pleasure of being able to review that cache when it came up. Several were submitted by out of town people that were simple virtual caches with targets like counting the fountains (including submissions before the memorial was completed no less). When that one came up I was astounded by the target since I had already visited the memorial and had not seen it (and I spent a lot of time there too). It was also listed by a local cacher! That is also one of my favorite virtual caches and the best one in DC.

1.4k · May 25, 2005

GeoCACHE It isn't just about wanting trinkets to look for, it's about there acutally being a cache of something. Otherwise it would be geoanythingforasmileying.

Virtual & "vacation" Caches.

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation