Revisiting the container

[AngryBirds]

Some ideas that crossed my mind about Landowner Permissions and containers ...

When there is a problem with a container (and not about our behaviour as cachers), it seems to be mainly because it is seen as litter or considered a security risk. What about if we used an item that is not hollow, with official Geocaching markings and a unique ID. In the same way we buy a Groundspeak tag for a TB, we could also purchase this type of cache from them. This item could be handled in the same way we record a discovered TB. Instead of signing the log, you could take note of*the unique ID and log that on the website as a find ... no more damp logs [:P].

Because it is not hollow (like a small ingot or coin?), it would not be seen as a security risk. If those items were identical in color and shape, the authorities could recognize them more easily when they are found. The official look of the item would also make it less likely to be seen as litter, no moldy or smelly content to put off a landowner or muggle.

This is not something we would use routinely. I see that as a tool to negotiate an agreement with a private MLO or a government body not too keen on the traditional container. I understand that a solid item would make it impossible to swap items or move TBs. At the end, when geocaching clashes with the muggle world, I would rather have this option then face a ban on physical caches.

I realize that this post should be on Groundspeak website as it is in fact a new type of cache. I am more interested to know the opinion of an experienced GAGB member, who faced a situation involving a container problem with a MLO. Would the use of a standardized and solid item help to negotiate an agreement or avoid a total ban on physical caches?

[Bear and Ragged]

Wanna swap numbers of the caches I've found, with the numbers of the caches you've found?

Can't see Groundspeak going for it.
No log to sign.
If there's no log to sign, it's not a Geocache.

(Yes, Earthcaches have no log to sign, but they didn't do well on Waymarking, and they are sponsored by an outside body!)

[AngryBirds]

Why do I have the impression your numbers are in the 1000s? ;) And no, I am very happy with our finds, loads of laughing children and fun family time memories ... there is no way I would trade that!

I was thinking about the Royal Parks when I wrote this post, would they have been more receptive, if they would have been offered another type of physical container?

It would make sense for Grounspeak to offer alternatives, rather then having to refuse the publication of a physical cache because a landowner is put off by the traditional container.

[Palujia]

Being a bit of a devil's advocate - I know of several caches with no log to sign - one in Cheddar George, and one in the Great Tythe Barn at Great Coxwell - also the one at the top of Snowdon So I can see the point that Angrybirds is making - special caches for special places ?

[Bear and Ragged]

Why do I have the impression your numbers are in the 1000s? ;) And no, I am very happy with our finds, loads of laughing children and fun family time memories ... there is no way I would trade that!

I was thinking about the Royal Parks when I wrote this post, would they have been more receptive, if they would have been offered another type of physical container?

It would make sense for Grounspeak to offer alternatives, rather then having to refuse the publication of a physical cache because a landowner is put off by the traditional container.

Any way of 'logging' a cache, without signing a log is open to abuse...
If it's a 'Unique ID number' there's nothing stopping cachers from writing it down, and swapping numbers with other cachers/listing on a website so others can claim a find, without going to the cache.

Well known as 'Armchair Caching' very popular amongst the Ger.... who try to log the old Virtual caches -For the Numbers- without ever getting anywhere near the cache.

[Mrs Blorenge]

Being a bit of a devil's advocate - I know of several caches with no log to sign - one in Cheddar George, and one in the Great Tythe Barn at Great Coxwell - also the one at the top of Snowdon So I can see the point that Angrybirds is making - special caches for special places ?

If these are physical caches (i.e. not Virtuals or Earthcaches) listed on Geocaching.com then they should have a log of some discription. If new cachers find these caches it gives the idea that it's OK not to have a logbook/log strip in a physical cache - I suggest you bring such caches to the attention of a reviewer.

From Groundspeak's Cache Listing Guidelines (https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#contents):

"For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit."

Some other listing sites such as Opencaching allow the logging of caches by using a 'password' that may be found at the cache location.

[AngryBirds]

I understand that all physical caches must have at least a container and a log that can be signed. I am also aware of the danger of cheating, if you do not have*a log to sign. Personnaly, I admit that I will never double check the logs in my own caches to find a*cheater, I have better things to do. If it is the only reason why we have to sign a log, then it seems to be a sad one.

My main concern is to avoid a ban and to have the right tools to ask for a ban to be reviewed. We have talented GAGB leaders/members, capable of bringing important agreements or saving bad situations ... but I do not think it is enough by itself.

Geocaching is completely dependant on the good will of landowners. While most seem happy with our tupperwares and micros, maybe others would like something more "formal". Why not offer an alternative when agreements do not go our way? It does not seem right to give cheaters legitimacy, by blocking logless caches.

I was reading a post yesterday about UK trigs vs US survey markers, why not make the geocaching experience wholesome by allowing innovation, rather then relegating logless caches to Waymarking? I hope Geocaching is not aiming at only pleasing the number seekers, that is not my cup of tea?

[Mrs Blorenge]

I was reading a post yesterday about UK trigs vs US survey markers, why not make the geocaching experience wholesome by allowing innovation, rather then relegating logless caches to Waymarking? I hope Geocaching is not aiming at only pleasing the number seekers, that is not my cup of tea?

May I suggest you make Groundspeak representatives aware of your opinions on these matters by adding your comments to these two Topics in the Feedback forum:

Benchmarks outside the USA (http://feedback.geocaching.com/geocaching/topics/benchmarks_outside_usa) You'll notice that a number of UK based cachers are asking GSP to allow UK Trigs and BMs to be logged.

Bring Back Virtual Caches (http://feedback.geocaching.com/geocaching/topics/bring_virtual_caches_back_please) To date, over 2700 caching accounts have said they'd like to see Virtual caches brought back to geocaching.com although there are a lot of conditional clauses being suggested! Many people are saying that they'd like to see Virtuals return but only under some sort of tight rein, similar to the way that Earth Caches are now reviewed, so that a Wow! factor can be preserved.

[AngryBirds]

Now, if only the Elephants in London could be permanent fixtures ... how cool would that be to hunt for them as Virtual Caches :D

[*mouse*]

Personally I think a cache without a log defeats the object of the game and turning it into something else - Waymarking. There's already a site for that.

I'll be the first to admit that I think that the return of virtuals is a very bad idea. I enjoy the ones that are still out there and the fact there are very few adds a special quality to them.
However if virtuals were reintroduced we would be inundated. Hiding a virtual requires minimal effort and maintenance so will be an easier option for many than taking time to hide a proper cache. Not going to do our hobby any good in the long run......

[L8HNB]

I understand that all physical caches must have at least a container and a log that can be signed ......
I know of at least one cache where there is no container but the cache is the log - not a bit of wood either!
Kept me guessing for a while :applause:

[agentmancuso]

However if virtuals were reintroduced we would be inundated. Hiding a virtual requires minimal effort and maintenance so will be an easier option for many than taking time to hide a proper cache. Not going to do our hobby any good in the long run......

I tend to agree with that. The biggest threat to the credibility of caching is the placing of thought-free caches. ( I'm not necessarily referring to pointless urban nanos/micros hung on fences ...:ohmy:). Allowing Virtuals would license numpties to call every second lamppost a cache, making the whole thing meaningless. And as we already have a dumping ground for meaningless caches (http://www.waymarking.com/), there would seem little advantage in it.

[Mrs Blorenge]

I would like Virtual to return... but only if they could be under a very tight rein, rather like Earthcaches are now. Maybe a panel of reviewers for each country/state who would be prepared to decide/vote on whether the submission had the necessary Wow! factor.

(... or maybe call it the X Factor as it would be about special locations? :p )

[Bear and Ragged]

(... or maybe call it the X Factor as it would be about special locations? :p )
... and cachers can phone in to say if they like/dislike the cache, and raise money to pay the reviewers. :cool:




:lol:

[AngryBirds]

I would like Virtual to return... but only if they could be under a very tight rein, rather like Earthcaches are now. Maybe a panel of reviewers for each country/state who would be prepared to decide/vote on whether the submission had the necessary Wow! factor.

(... or maybe call it the X Factor as it would be about special locations? :p )

I probably missed something about the appearance, then dissapearance of Virtual Caches on geocaching.com ... and the reasoning behind all that.

What I understood, reading the forums, is that some people felt that they were misused and abused by some cachers? Is that not also true for Physical Caches? Why would a Virtual Cache be under more scrutiny then a poorly placed/boring Physical Cache, an innacurate IPhone one or a Power Trail?

The forums are active with posts from cachers complaining about Physical Caches. From what I can see, it is a general problem affecting all types of caches?

[Mrs Blorenge]

I keep a link to this post from tozainamboku which I think explains very well the background history and 'politics' of Virtual caches on geocaching.com...

The Virtual Story (https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?s=&showtopic=193243&view=findpost&p=3469751).

[nobbynobbs]

I'd like to see the return of controlled virtuals that could be used in locations of significant interest but where a cache is just not practical or sensible. It would need a second tier of reviwers though to grant permission.

[Lime Candy]

I would definitely support the return of virtuals. I can understand that there would be a potential problem with cachers claiming the find but not actually having visited the site, but surely that's up the the cache owner to monitor?

Do Earthcache owners have problems with cachers fraudulently logging?

With a decent set of guidelines, e.g. requiring the answer to a question to prove the cacher has actually been there, I don't see an issue with allowing new virtuals.

[keehotee]

I would definitely support the return of virtuals. I can understand that there would be a potential problem with cachers claiming the find but not actually having visited the site, but surely that's up the the cache owner to monitor?

Do Earthcache owners have problems with cachers fraudulently logging?

With a decent set of guidelines, e.g. requiring the answer to a question to prove the cacher has actually been there, I don't see an issue with allowing new virtuals.

Yes - earthcache owners have a huge problem with certain sectors of the caching community fraudulently logging.

You can of course still set virtuals - there are other caching sites besides Groundspeak that still allow virts - and there's Waymarking. However, neither of these options will up your groundspeak find count, and I suspect that therein is the real issue here.....

[Lime Candy]

Yes - earthcache owners have a huge problem with certain sectors of the caching community fraudulently logging.

You can of course still set virtuals - there are other caching sites besides Groundspeak that still allow virts - and there's Waymarking. However, neither of these options will up your groundspeak find count, and I suspect that therein is the real issue here.....

Yes, I think that is the real issue. The few virtual caches are effectively in a closed set, no more can be added. If Groundspeak had banned all virtuals, they would just be a dim memory (or would all exist as waymarks). But the fact that there are some virtuals draws them to the attention, and the obvious question is - "why can't we set up any new ones".

As for fraudulent logs, it's up to the CO to act as they see fit. Delete them or leave them. It's only a game. :)

[keehotee]

Yes, I think that is the real issue. The few virtual caches are effectively in a closed set, no more can be added. If Groundspeak had banned all virtuals, they would just be a dim memory (or would all exist as waymarks). But the fact that there are some virtuals draws them to the attention, and the obvious question is - "why can't we set up any new ones".


I think you missed my point. You can still set new virtuals, and you can still find virtuals, and if somebody feels that strongly about virtuals they are still there on other sites to do. But the all-powerful Groundspeak number count seems to be a stronger draw for most people than virtuals ever were.

To reiterate - there is nothing stopping you from setting any number of new virtual caches. You can list them on Waymarking.com, or any three of the four main active cache listing sites. You cannot, though, list them on Groundspeaks caching site. So you will have to make the choice for yourself - are you more concerned with a visible count, or with bringing people to a site you love but cannot hide a physical cache at?

[Lime Candy]

I think you missed my point. You can still set new virtuals, and you can still find virtuals, and if somebody feels that strongly about virtuals they are still there on other sites to do. But the all-powerful Groundspeak number count seems to be a stronger draw for most people than virtuals ever were.

To reiterate - there is nothing stopping you from setting any number of new virtual caches. You can list them on Waymarking.com, or any three of the four main active cache listing sites. You cannot, though, list them on Groundspeaks caching site. So you will have to make the choice for yourself - are you more concerned with a visible count, or with bringing people to a site you love but cannot hide a physical cache at?

I meant Groundspeak, not the other sites. One site is more than enough for me.

It seems Groundspeak banned virtuals for a good reason. But I am hopeful that they'll reconsider, subject to whatever guidelines they feel need to be introduced.

[AngryBirds]

I think you missed my point. You can still set new virtuals, and you can still find virtuals, and if somebody feels that strongly about virtuals they are still there on other sites to do. But the all-powerful Groundspeak number count seems to be a stronger draw for most people than virtuals ever were.

To reiterate - there is nothing stopping you from setting any number of new virtual caches. You can list them on Waymarking.com, or any three of the four main active cache listing sites. You cannot, though, list them on Groundspeaks caching site. So you will have to make the choice for yourself - are you more concerned with a visible count, or with bringing people to a site you love but cannot hide a physical cache at?

I am also aware that you can do virtual caching on other sites, but as you wisely said ... its the fact that you need to go to different sites to log them in, it is not user friendly. I do not care about my cache count, its full of DNFs anyway :D, but I do like a one shop for all interface.

There is more then just the logging aspect that I find annoying. The other sites do not have the huge popularity of geocaching.com. Setting a cache is fun, but if there is barely anyone finding it, that defeat the purpose of setting one up in the first place.

I also think the logic applied to take Virtual Caches out of geocaching.com is flawed. Thanks to the very good reference forum link from Mrs B, I understand the reasoning and process leading to the ban of Virtual Caches. On the other hand, you can also apply the same logic to many form of Physical Caches that are becoming a plague, as I mentioned earlier in this post. Will geocaching.com create a Bad and Boring Physical Cache website when there will be enough complaints? ;)

It is not the cache that is the problem, its the person who put the cache in the first place. Fraudulent entries needs to be monitored by a responsible cache owner. If they do not, then they need to think about their responsabilities as Virtual Cache owners.

Why not improving the reviewing for all types and teach cachers to play by the rules?

On a note of caution, when my wife goes shopping ... I would be greatful to have a boring cache in the middle of the parking lot, with poor coordinates. It will give me a reason to escape for many weeks :D

[Maple Leaf]

I don't see why we need to bring back virtuals.

If it is a good enough place to visit, then why not use some information available at the location (date etc) as a stage in a multi-cache ..... or even build a Wherigo cartridge/story about the location.

Ok, you won't get as many finders ... but I would rather do one multi-cache or Wherigo that is taking me someone nice and often educational than several traditional caches that have just been placed just for the sake of a cache.