Virtual & "vacation" Caches.

[+Polgara]

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.

I disagree. I'd rather enjoy the beauty of the view and nature at its finest then be hunting around for a scrap of paper shoved in an altoids tin. I read the log book of a cache that is now retired over the weekend. The hider placed in the cache a pocketknife, a rain poncho, batteries and an emergency blanket....a far cry from an altoids tin with a scrap of paper. What has happened to geocaching when people feel its a great thing to cut out the walk in the woods, the ammo can, and the nature of it all and replace it with highway guardrails, gas stations, and decorative shrubs. What is happening to this great sport/hobby?

[+karstic]

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.

:buzzer sound: Wrong!!!

 

There are some awsome virtuals that I have found that are much better than some crappy micro magnetoed under a bus bench.

[+Markwell]

:buzzer sound: Wrong!!!

 

Virtual Guidelines

Note: Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it. Please keep in mind physical caches are the prime goal when submitting your cache report.

 

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?” Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

 

And... a quote:

 

I'm wildly sober about this. Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessability of caching in areas that discourage it. If you must create a virtual cache its best to bring the idea up before doing the research. Expect a no first and a yes in extraordinary situations. I hate it has to be blunt but that's the fact, Jack.

[+habot]

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.

Another samples ?

 

Jessex - Isle Be In Seine (Paris) - Disable (cache missing)

Jessex - d'Orsay Vue (Paris) - Archived (cache mising)

Jessex - ARCHE (Paris) - Disable (cache missing)

 

Just, It is the future of the caches on vacation.

[+sbell111]

Well, explain the point to me.

 

While you're at it, how is a vacationer better suited to place such a cache than the person who lives there?

 

Note: Before you check and derail my post with the fact, I own a 'vacation' virtual that was grandfathered. I do not live there, but am in the area a half dozen times per year.

[+karstic]

:buzzer sound: Wrong!!!

 

Virtual Guidelines

Note: Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it. Please keep in mind physical caches are the prime goal when submitting your cache report.

 

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?” Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

 

And... a quote:

 

I'm wildly sober about this. Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessability of caching in areas that discourage it. If you must create a virtual cache its best to bring the idea up before doing the research. Expect a no first and a yes in extraordinary situations. I hate it has to be blunt but that's the fact, Jack.

Acknowledged.

 

Maybe I should have just quoted this part...

 

Even if it's just a micro, a traditional cache is better than a virtual.

 

Let's face it there are both crummy virtuals and micros.

 

Here is a virtual that is worthy of cache status.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ff-b1804bf25fe2

[Jeremy]

Let's face it there are both crummy virtuals and micros.

and crummy traditional and multicaches too. It's why I can't understand why people use this to explain why there should be more virtuals. Don't we have enough crumbs?

 

BTW, how do you plant a virtual cache?

[+sbell111]

...BTW, how do you plant a virtual cache?

First, you order the plaque...

[+Team GPSaxophone]

<long rant snipped>

Actually, geocaching is about finding a hidden container with a GPSr. I don't need one of those to find the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Notre Dame, or any number of "tourist" destinations. I like geocaching to take me someplace not mentioned in the AAA tourbook (or whatever your country's equivalent is)

Perhaps Jeremy, cachers and geocaching.com should re-examine what this is game about.  We are hopeful they will.

Last I heard they were working on something like that. It was delayed from May to June to make sure it wouldn't crash the site or something. I look forward to seeing what their solution is.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Actually, geocaching is about finding a hidden container with a GPSr. I don't need one of those to find the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Notre Dame, or any number of "tourist" destinations. I like geocaching to take me someplace not mentioned in the AAA tourbook (or whatever your country's equivalent is)

Just playing Devils Advocate here, but what about some cool little spot that is often overlooked by the majority of visitors to a popular, yet uncacheable, destination?

 

Just an example (there was a cache here once, but I don't think its still there):

in the Lake Mead National Rec area there is ther remains of a anti-aircraft gun site on top of a hill near the Hoover Dam. Obviously, a regular cache cannot be placed here due to the ban, and it is real close to a highly visited site, but most tourists know nothing of it. Sounds like a great spot for a virtual to me.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Actually, geocaching is about finding a hidden container with a GPSr. I don't need one of those to find the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Notre Dame, or any number of "tourist" destinations. I like geocaching to take me someplace not mentioned in the AAA tourbook (or whatever your country's equivalent is)

Just playing Devils Advocate here, but what about some cool little spot that is often overlooked by the majority of visitors to a popular, yet uncacheable, destination?

 

Just an example (there was a cache here once, but I don't think its still there):

in the Lake Mead National Rec area there is ther remains of a anti-aircraft gun site on top of a hill near the Hoover Dam. Obviously, a regular cache cannot be placed here due to the ban, and it is real close to a highly visited site, but most tourists know nothing of it. Sounds like a great spot for a virtual to me.

Caches are banned at Lake Mead?

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Yup. Its a National Recreation Area, part of the National Park Service, and as such falls under the same ban. Sucks, as I know of a ton of great spots for caches there (not that I live there any more, but my brother-in-law does, and as he works at the lake he knows of some absolutly amazing spots for caches that he'd love to hide one at).

 

in fact, one of the cache we found our first day of caching is now gone, as it was a few feet within the boundary. It was way out in the middle of nowhere, and you had to follow a 4x4 trail for a few miles to reach it, but it happened to be on the wrong side of the line. sad, as it was a great cache with a veiw of the river that most would never see.

[+fizzymagic]

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

Yeah, right.

 

I'll bet you go around to all your physical caches once a week or so to make sure everything is OK, since waiting for a finder to report a problem is having them "do your work for you."

 

The reality is that problems with caches are almost universally only discovered when a seeker reports them. And in every one of your "examples," the problem could have easily been resolved by a remote cacher as easily as by a local cacher.

 

The claim that somehow virtual caches require a local to maintain them is mind-blowingly idiotic.

Edited June 1, 2005 by fizzymagic

[+briansnat]

The reality is that problems with caches are almost universally only discovered when a seeker reports them.

 

The claim that somehow virtual caches require a local to maintain them is mind-blowingly idiotic.

 

So Joe Geocacher can't find the plaque for the virtual and reports a DNF. Is the plaque there? Was it moved? Was it removed? Who is going to determine this other than the cache owner?

 

Case in point. I had a cache that used info found on a Revolutionary War era cannon in a park. After a pair of DNFs I checked and found the cannon was gone. I disabled the cache, then several months later found the cannon was back.

 

In this case someone was needed to determine that the cannon was indeed gone, and that it had been returned. Had I been an absentee owner, I would have depended on the kindness of a local geocacher to check on it for me, which is really no different from a real cache.

[+mtn-man]

The claim that somehow virtual caches require a local to maintain them is mind-blowingly idiotic.

I think the only thing that is (your words) "idiotic" are statements like that.

 

Case in point...

 

Kennesaw Mountain Virtual Cache

 

Please scroll down to the June 22, 2002 by freff. Since I hike that area regularly I was able to check it to see if the sign was in place. A few months later it was. I cannot remember if we had the ability to disable the cache back then, but I think we were able to.

 

I have provided many other instances over time in these forums.

 

EDIT: I have always been a huge supporter of virtual caches, but I cannot wait for the day when the site configuration changes and they are no longer an option in their current form. Maybe virtual cache discussions where people insult other members of the community by calling their opinions "mind-blowingly idiotic" will finally go away.

Edited June 1, 2005 by mtn-man

[+fizzymagic]

Since I hike that area regularly I was able to check it to see if the sign was in place.

Did I miss the part where you discovered the problem yourself without having another geocacher report it to you and, thus, "do your work for you?"

 

No, I didn't. You didn't discover the problem yourself; it was reported by another.

 

Mind-blowing.

[+mtn-man]

Mind-blowing for the simple minded, maybe.

 

No one expects anyone to check every cache of theirs every day. To expect that is absurd. By your logic, there should be no caches of any type anywhere at any time. I'm sorry that you cannot grasp this.

 

I know from the chat room that you are trolling to start an argument.

You picked my quote for a reason and the vacation virtual argument is a red herring.

 

The bottom line is:

1. Jeremy says no to vacation virtual caches.

2. The site is about to change anyway, so you are beating a dead horse.

[+fizzymagic]

No one expects anyone to check every cache of theirs every day.  To expect that is absurd.  By your logic, there should be no caches of any type anywhere at any time.  I'm sorry that you cannot grasp this.

 

It's not my logic -- it is yours. From your post higher in this very thread:

 

QUOTE (Jessex @ May 23 2005, 03:36 PM)

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.

 

mtn-man responded:

 

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

 

I agree that it is absurd to expect that hiders are responsible for checking their caches every day; in fact, that was my point. As you so eloquently put it, by your logic there should be no caches of any kind anywhere. Thanks for supporting my point, and for repudiating your previous position.

 

I know from the chat room that you are trolling to start an argument. 

You picked my quote for a reason and the vacation virtual argument is a red herring.

 

On the contrary; I am trying to point out the hypocrisy of the policy on "vacation virtuals," not start an argument.

 

What started this was that I was on a trip last week. My cruise ship stopped in Acapulco, MX, a city of 3.5 million people. There is 1 (count 'em) cache within 20 miles of the city, and it appears to be missing. It would never be approved today, in any case. I would have very much enjoyed a virt to do while I was there, but none were available because of Groundspeak's policy on vacation virtuals.

 

Are you saying that the policy on vacation virtuals will change with the new site configuration? If so, that would be welcome, but given the intransigence of admin positions on this issue, I doubt any change will be forthcoming; thus, my comments about the validity of the policy are far from beating a dead horse.

Edited June 1, 2005 by fizzymagic

[+briansnat]

Since I hike that area regularly I was able to check it to see if the sign was in place.

Did I miss the part where you discovered the problem yourself without having another geocacher report it to you and, thus, "do your work for you?"

 

No, I didn't. You didn't discover the problem yourself; it was reported by another.

 

Mind-blowing.

A possible problem was reported to me and I needed to go there to check on it. You see, sometimes people search for a cache and don't find it, even though its still there. A DNF is not proof positive that a cache is missing. Someone must verify its status. Who better than the owner?

 

Mindblowing.

Edited June 1, 2005 by briansnat

[Jeremy]

Are you saying that the policy on vacation virtuals will change with the new site configuration? If so, that would be welcome, but given the intransigence of admin positions on this issue, I doubt any change will be forthcoming; thus, my comments about the validity of the policy are far from beating a dead horse.

Zing! You zapped those admins good, boy howdy. Both welcomed it and stuck in a boot for good measure.

[+briansnat]

Boy howdy?

[+Mopar]

Boy howdy?

Maybe that's a feature of the forum, like how it replaces a swear that begins with "d" with "dadgum". Maybe Jeremy really typed a bad word that began with a "b" and the forum changed it to "boy howdy" for him.

[+sbell111]

I get it. You think Jeremy was calling him a boy howdy. How rude!

[+Renegade Knight]

Boy howdy?

Haven't heard that one in a while. I'm surpised this thread is still active. Some horses aren't really dead.

[+Number 6]

Simple solution for anyone who objects to caches placed on property without permission is to not visit such caches. I suppose that proof of written permission could be required before traditional caches are approved ... Huh? Oh, this thread isn't about traditional cachers who routinely place caches in locations not within the guidelines of Geocaching? Okay. Let me try again...

 

Simple solution for anyone who objects to vitual caches is to not attempt to locate them. For those of us who enjoy going someplace we would not have otherwise, enjoy the hunt for the sake of the hunt, and prefer zero environmental impact with lower risk of exposure to the sorts of things documented in the Bad Things Found In A Geocache, please let us enjoy our abberations.