Jump to content

A virtual from 2008?


Roman!

Recommended Posts

I went looking for a cache today, should have been an easy find, lots of logs with no DNFs. Looked and looked and looked, then I read the cache page and was upset I was wasting my time.

 

This is a log from the CO from 2008: Checked out the site and indeed for the 2nd time, cache is gone. I decided to keep the site active, but instead of signing a microcache and logging, please send me via email through geocaching.com, the name on the plaque (DO NOT PUT REQUESTED NAME IN YOUR LOG) or include a pic of the area when logging.

 

And this is the description on the cache page: I was going to archive this as I have lost 2 microcaches. I decided not to as it is a nice spot to relax. Instead, please either email me the name on the plaque or alternative post a picture of the area when you post. Please do not put the answer I requested in your log or I will delete your posting.

 

It's been 6 years since this cache was turned into a virtual with only a handful of DNFs, most because they never found the cache and didn't read the cache page. There have been some 200+ found it logs since then.

 

I am the first to post a NA and not log a find, I guess this just might be the ultimate Found it = Didn't find it cache.

Link to comment

This happens more than you might think, especially from old-timers who remember the days when you could freely change the cache type and the coordinates. Unless a reviewer stumbles across the mis-categorized listing by accident -- like as a player -- we rely on the community to report these as Roman! has done.

 

Once a cache like this comes to my attention, I have a standard form letter:

 

Hello,

 

I noticed that this physical cache has gone missing, and that the listing has been "converted to a virtual" by the owner. This is a traditional cache, and requires a replacement container ASAP. I have temporarily disabled the cache so that people will know not to search for something that isn't there. When the owner completes the necessary maintenance, please re-enable the cache. I have bookmarked this cache and will check back in a couple of weeks to make sure that this has been done.

 

Thanks,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Link to comment

This happens more than you might think, especially from old-timers who remember the days when you could freely change the cache type and the coordinates. Unless a reviewer stumbles across the mis-categorized listing by accident -- like as a player -- we rely on the community to report these as Roman! has done.

 

Once a cache like this comes to my attention, I have a standard form letter:

 

Hello,

 

I noticed that this physical cache has gone missing, and that the listing has been "converted to a virtual" by the owner. This is a traditional cache, and requires a replacement container ASAP. I have temporarily disabled the cache so that people will know not to search for something that isn't there. When the owner completes the necessary maintenance, please re-enable the cache. I have bookmarked this cache and will check back in a couple of weeks to make sure that this has been done.

 

Thanks,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

I am very surprised by how many cachers have logged this as found without any one reporting it. One cacher came close, logged it as found, then posted a needs maintenance.

Link to comment

I see it too once a while. If you download all your cache from your area to your GSAK and search for "virtual" or "email me". You might get a few hits. :ph34r:

 

I've seen a few but never one 8 years as a virtual with several hundred of cachers logging it as such and not one person posting an NA.

 

I love my smilies but I would never claim one on this cache.

Link to comment

I am very surprised by how many cachers have logged this as found without any one reporting it. One cacher came close, logged it as found, then posted a needs maintenance.

 

I'm not surprised. I would say this is a symptom of people's wish to avoid being branded a cache cop which has become ingrained into geocaching culture - much, much easier to claim the smiley and move on without drawing unwelcome attention by rocking the boat :mad:

Link to comment

Just yesterday I went looking for this cache, spent a good ten minutes searching before I read the description again and realized it's a virtual that's listed as a traditional. Reading through the early logs, it sounds like there was at some point a micro cache, but reading the description now it says "There is no log to sign, no paperwork to complete. Your only task is to enjoy this small town!"

Link to comment

I see it too once a while. If you download all your cache from your area to your GSAK and search for "virtual" or "email me". You might get a few hits. :ph34r:

 

I've seen a few but never one 8 years as a virtual with several hundred of cachers logging it as such and not one person posting an NA.

 

I love my smilies but I would never claim one on this cache.

Here is one that went for years without getting caught. http://coord.info/GCA8D7 (the CO glued a penny under a railing and yes that alone is against the guideline as well.)

 

I was a newbie at time and didnt report it because I didnt know the guideline about those things.

Link to comment

I am very surprised by how many cachers have logged this as found without any one reporting it. One cacher came close, logged it as found, then posted a needs maintenance.

 

I'm not surprised. I would say this is a symptom of people's wish to avoid being branded a cache cop which has become ingrained into geocaching culture - much, much easier to claim the smiley and move on without drawing unwelcome attention by rocking the boat :mad:

Yes, that's it exactly. I've been guilty of it.

 

Last year I was at the GZ of a cache that myself and many others were very uncomfortable about the placement. No one logged the NA.

Groundspeak archived it a few days later on behalf of the property owner.

Link to comment

Last year I went searching for another cache and couldn't find it, a few months earlier there were several DNFs and the CO was out of country so he changed the cache page asking for a picture at GZ. Again I wasted gas driving there and time searching, I posted an NA and the reviewer posted his note. A friend of the CO went to replace the cache but found the original still there, only well hidden in a different spot.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

Very interesting topic. It actually reminded me of one of the first caches I ever attempted, GC88B8. It was only a block from work, so I got my phone and headed to GZ. Upon arrival, I searched and searched. I must have spent 20 minutes looking all over the place for a container. Exasperated, I headed back to the office, ready to log a DNF. Then I noticed an important nugget of information on the cache page: it was a virtual. Whoops. Important lesson learned!

Link to comment

I am very surprised by how many cachers have logged this as found without any one reporting it. One cacher came close, logged it as found, then posted a needs maintenance.

I'm not surprised. I would say this is a symptom of people's wish to avoid being branded a cache cop which has become ingrained into geocaching culture - much, much easier to claim the smiley and move on without drawing unwelcome attention by rocking the boat :mad:

Eh. I wouldn't report it because I wouldn't consider it a big deal. I'd probably log a find, too, if I'm willing to meet the CO's requirements. If I enjoyed it, why would I consider it a problem that needs to be reported?

 

As it happens, I can't actually remember if I've ever run into one of those. If I had, in my mind it would probably just be another virtual. Come to think of it, it is just another virtual, it just happens to be mislabeled and, well, illegal.

 

On the other hand, I have no problem with anyone reporting such a cache if they see it differently. Since it should never have existed, I can't shed any tears if it goes away.

Link to comment

I am very surprised by how many cachers have logged this as found without any one reporting it. One cacher came close, logged it as found, then posted a needs maintenance.

I'm not surprised. I would say this is a symptom of people's wish to avoid being branded a cache cop which has become ingrained into geocaching culture - much, much easier to claim the smiley and move on without drawing unwelcome attention by rocking the boat :mad:

Eh. I wouldn't report it because I wouldn't consider it a big deal. I'd probably log a find, too, if I'm willing to meet the CO's requirements. If I enjoyed it, why would I consider it a problem that needs to be reported?

 

As it happens, I can't actually remember if I've ever run into one of those. If I had, in my mind it would probably just be another virtual. Come to think of it, it is just another virtual, it just happens to be mislabeled and, well, illegal.

 

On the other hand, I have no problem with anyone reporting such a cache if they see it differently. Since it should never have existed, I can't shed any tears if it goes away.

 

I'm guilty of thinking "well...I got a smiley out of it, so it might make me a little hypocritical to claim the smiley and then turn around and say it needs to be archived."

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

IMHO since it's a traditional and I neither found the cache nor signed the log I shouldn't claim the smiley. Just because the CO says it's ok it doesn't make it any different than all the other found it = didn't find it logs from that thread.

 

I guess what irks me is if not for all the smilies on a missing cache I would not have went there and saved both time and gas.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

There have been some 200+ found it logs since then.

Wow.

 

I see a lot of names there should have known better, including several current or former members of the provincial geocaching association's executive and at least one former Geocacher of the Month.

 

Thank you for having the integrity and willpower to not log this as a find and instead report it.

Link to comment

IMHO since it's a traditional and I neither found the cache nor signed the log I shouldn't claim the smiley. Just because the CO says it's ok it doesn't make it any different than all the other found it = didn't find it logs from that thread.

 

I guess what irks me is if not for all the smilies on a missing cache I would not have went there and saved both time and gas.

 

I read all cache pages before going for a cache, so it's on you, really.

Link to comment

There have been some 200+ found it logs since then.

Wow.

 

I see a lot of names there should have known better, including several current or former members of the provincial geocaching association's executive and at least one former Geocacher of the Month.

 

I noticed that too, it's quite the who's who of B.C. Geocachers.

Link to comment

I am very surprised by how many cachers have logged this as found without any one reporting it. One cacher came close, logged it as found, then posted a needs maintenance.

I'm not surprised. I would say this is a symptom of people's wish to avoid being branded a cache cop which has become ingrained into geocaching culture - much, much easier to claim the smiley and move on without drawing unwelcome attention by rocking the boat :mad:

Eh. I wouldn't report it because I wouldn't consider it a big deal. I'd probably log a find, too, if I'm willing to meet the CO's requirements. If I enjoyed it, why would I consider it a problem that needs to be reported?

 

As it happens, I can't actually remember if I've ever run into one of those. If I had, in my mind it would probably just be another virtual. Come to think of it, it is just another virtual, it just happens to be mislabeled and, well, illegal.

 

On the other hand, I have no problem with anyone reporting such a cache if they see it differently. Since it should never have existed, I can't shed any tears if it goes away.

 

I'll +1 this post. I believe the moderator said in the 2nd or 3rd post "this is more common than you think". I've seen it plenty of times, beginning with a 2001 placed "traditional turned virt via reading the cache page" about 20 miles from my house. But the guy was caught by 2004, and I never got around to it. HOWEVER, I did in fact log a traditional turned virt via reading the cache page in Disney World in 2004. But I didn't think it was a big deal, virtuals were still allowed, and like I said, I had seen it before.

 

Now, in this case, with something "new" like this turned virt long after they were outlawed, I'd NEVER log the find. Would I report it? You know what, probably not. But I did say probably. :lol:

Link to comment

It shouldn't have to be considered a "big deal" to get reported. Inversely this illustrates the problem of people making a big deal out of simple NA logs. Not saying anything is only betraying future seekers who will be expecting to find something,

I'm not really concerned about Roman! being disappointed when 200 other people enjoyed it. You seem to be implying that because I used the term "big deal", that meant I would consider it a "deal" of some kind, but not enough of a deal to report. No, I wouldn't see it as an issue at all.

 

IMHO since it's a traditional and I neither found the cache nor signed the log I shouldn't claim the smiley.

Which is fine, but as I already pointed out, another logical way to look at it is that it really is a Virtual even though it isn't correctly labeled. It's perfectly normal to claim finds on Virtuals even though you don't find a cache or sign a log.

Link to comment

It shouldn't have to be considered a "big deal" to get reported. Inversely this illustrates the problem of people making a big deal out of simple NA logs. Not saying anything is only betraying future seekers who will be expecting to find something,

I'm not really concerned about Roman! being disappointed when 200 other people enjoyed it. You seem to be implying that because I used the term "big deal", that meant I would consider it a "deal" of some kind, but not enough of a deal to report. No, I wouldn't see it as an issue at all.

 

IMHO since it's a traditional and I neither found the cache nor signed the log I shouldn't claim the smiley.

Which is fine, but as I already pointed out, another logical way to look at it is that it really is a Virtual even though it isn't correctly labeled. It's perfectly normal to claim finds on Virtuals even though you don't find a cache or sign a log.

 

The cache is a traditional so not signing a log = no smiley. They could have enjoyed the spot just as much posting a DNF and if the cache got archived it would have made room for a real traditional at that location.

 

There are some pretty simple rules to the different cache types, if we can't follow them then it's pretty sad.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I am very surprised by how many cachers have logged this as found without any one reporting it. One cacher came close, logged it as found, then posted a needs maintenance.

I'm not surprised. I would say this is a symptom of people's wish to avoid being branded a cache cop which has become ingrained into geocaching culture - much, much easier to claim the smiley and move on without drawing unwelcome attention by rocking the boat :mad:

Eh. I wouldn't report it because I wouldn't consider it a big deal. I'd probably log a find, too, if I'm willing to meet the CO's requirements. If I enjoyed it, why would I consider it a problem that needs to be reported?

 

As it happens, I can't actually remember if I've ever run into one of those. If I had, in my mind it would probably just be another virtual. Come to think of it, it is just another virtual, it just happens to be mislabeled and, well, illegal.

 

On the other hand, I have no problem with anyone reporting such a cache if they see it differently. Since it should never have existed, I can't shed any tears if it goes away.

 

I'll +1 this post. I believe the moderator said in the 2nd or 3rd post "this is more common than you think". I've seen it plenty of times, beginning with a 2001 placed "traditional turned virt via reading the cache page" about 20 miles from my house. But the guy was caught by 2004, and I never got around to it. HOWEVER, I did in fact log a traditional turned virt via reading the cache page in Disney World in 2004. But I didn't think it was a big deal, virtuals were still allowed, and like I said, I had seen it before.

 

Now, in this case, with something "new" like this turned virt long after they were outlawed, I'd NEVER log the find. Would I report it? You know what, probably not. But I did say probably. :lol:

 

It's probably more common because 99.5% of the people ignore it and actually promote it! Doesn't make it right.

Link to comment

I know virtuals are no longer allowed. But I'm not going to report something like that. That is not something that is going to give geocaching a black eye so I wouldn't fret over it.

 

If someone reported it earlier I wouldn't have wasted my time and gas searching for it, maybe it'll save someone else's time and gas.

 

I wish someone had reported it years ago, maybe there would have been a real cache for me to find.

 

Around here if a cache is missing and not replaced within a few months people start posting notes, NMs and NAs but this time they took the COs offered smiley instead of doing what they would have done had not the CO made the offer.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I know virtuals are no longer allowed. But I'm not going to report something like that. That is not something that is going to give geocaching a black eye so I wouldn't fret over it.

 

If someone reported it earlier I wouldn't have wasted my time and gas searching for it, maybe it'll save someone else's time and gas.

 

I wish someone had reported it years ago, maybe there would have been a real cache for me to find.

 

So, you made a special trip just to find that one single cache without reading the listing? I would think you would be more to blame for your wasted gas and time than anyone else.

Link to comment

I see the one I found in Oregon that was a traditional in disguise as a virtual has now been changed to either a traditional or a virtual depending on what you want to do. I see all the logs which actually pointed out the cache is a virtual have been decrypted, like mine.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCJ5K9_the-lonely-chess-player?guid=c18f87e3-5f1f-4044-bbff-f361fd8b3d0b

 

I enjoyed the spot and the area had so few interesting or non-traditional caches, I did not report it, but was definitely not a traditional at the time.

Link to comment

I know virtuals are no longer allowed. But I'm not going to report something like that. That is not something that is going to give geocaching a black eye so I wouldn't fret over it.

 

If someone reported it earlier I wouldn't have wasted my time and gas searching for it, maybe it'll save someone else's time and gas.

 

I wish someone had reported it years ago, maybe there would have been a real cache for me to find.

 

So, you made a special trip just to find that one single cache without reading the listing? I would think you would be more to blame for your wasted gas and time than anyone else.

 

I check logs as most people do, as I've said earlier if the cache has dozens of finds with no DNFs I expect a reasonable chance at finding it, I do not expect the cache to be missing for years.

 

I'd call b.ll on anyone that says they read every word on every cache page before going to GZ.

Link to comment

Btw, what was so special about a D2T1 geocache that prompted you to drive such a long distance to find with no other info than the name, rating, and past few logs to go on?

 

We have family in the area so going to southern Oregon is not outside our realm, partly why I completed the Oregon Counties Challenge. Besides, I like to roam. I would not have driven down there just for that cache.

Link to comment

I see the one I found in Oregon that was a traditional in disguise as a virtual has now been changed to either a traditional or a virtual depending on what you want to do. I see all the logs which actually pointed out the cache is a virtual have been decrypted, like mine.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCJ5K9_the-lonely-chess-player?guid=c18f87e3-5f1f-4044-bbff-f361fd8b3d0b

 

I enjoyed the spot and the area had so few interesting or non-traditional caches, I did not report it, but was definitely not a traditional at the time.

 

Although I do not believe that CO should be accepting photo logs at least if I were to go there I'd still have the opportunity to find a cache and sign the log.

Link to comment

I'd call b.ll on anyone that says they read every word on every cache page before going to GZ.

 

You'd be right. But if I'm making a special trip just to find a particular cache, I am going to be reading the listing and logs and probably checking Google maps before leaving the house.

 

But, if I am just looking for another cache while out looking for other caches in the area, I'm probably not going to read the cache page. That is unless I'm 20 or 30 minutes into the search. Then I'm pulling the listing up on my phone to see if I missed something. Either way, if I'm searching for another cache while out looking for other caches, I've not really wasted that much gas on 1 improperly labeled cache, am I?

 

You were just ticked because you couldn't find the cache. That is a respectable reason all on its own to be upset. But the gas and time argument are more on you than anyone else.

Link to comment

Btw, what was so special about a D2T1 geocache that prompted you to drive such a long distance to find with no other info than the name, rating, and past few logs to go on?

 

We have family in the area so going to southern Oregon is not outside our realm, partly why I completed the Oregon Counties Challenge. Besides, I like to roam. I would not have driven down there just for that cache.

 

You posted between me and Roman. I usually quote who I am responding to. My appologies. It was not directed at you, but at the cache in the original post.

Link to comment

I'd call b.ll on anyone that says they read every word on every cache page before going to GZ.

 

You'd be right. But if I'm making a special trip just to find a particular cache, I am going to be reading the listing and logs and probably checking Google maps before leaving the house.

 

But, if I am just looking for another cache while out looking for other caches in the area, I'm probably not going to read the cache page. That is unless I'm 20 or 30 minutes into the search. Then I'm pulling the listing up on my phone to see if I missed something. Either way, if I'm searching for another cache while out looking for other caches, I've not really wasted that much gas on 1 improperly labeled cache, am I?

 

You were just ticked because you couldn't find the cache. That is a respectable reason all on its own to be upset. But the gas and time argument are more on you than anyone else.

 

I didn't make a special trip, I was in the area visiting my parents and pulling up random nearby caches. I checked for DNFs and it had none so went to it.

 

I don't get upset if I can't find a cache if I know last logs were DNFs or if it might have went missing since the last find or if I just can't find it, but yah, a bit irked knowing now that it's been missing 6 years.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

Btw, what was so special about a D2T1 geocache that prompted you to drive such a long distance to find with no other info than the name, rating, and past few logs to go on?

 

We have family in the area so going to southern Oregon is not outside our realm, partly why I completed the Oregon Counties Challenge. Besides, I like to roam. I would not have driven down there just for that cache.

 

You posted between me and Roman. I usually quote who I am responding to. My appologies. It was not directed at you, but at the cache in the original post.

 

Okay, thought it was odd, but the cache I posted was D2T1 so I thought you might have.

Link to comment

Btw, what was so special about a D2T1 geocache that prompted you to drive such a long distance to find with no other info than the name, rating, and past few logs to go on?

 

We have family in the area so going to southern Oregon is not outside our realm, partly why I completed the Oregon Counties Challenge. Besides, I like to roam. I would not have driven down there just for that cache.

 

You posted between me and Roman. I usually quote who I am responding to. My appologies. It was not directed at you, but at the cache in the original post.

 

Ha, I was confused the cache I found is a 1 1/2 - 1 and lamorakes is a 2-1 and his reason is the same as mine.

Link to comment

I didn't make a special trip, I was in the area visiting my parents and pulling up random nearby caches. I checked for DNFs and it had none so went to it.

 

So you did not really waste any gas. And if you wasted more than 30 minutes, you should have pulled up the cache listing.

 

This is really a situation where one should just post an NA and move on. Not sure where all the drama is coming from.

Link to comment

Btw, what was so special about a D2T1 geocache that prompted you to drive such a long distance to find with no other info than the name, rating, and past few logs to go on?

 

We have family in the area so going to southern Oregon is not outside our realm, partly why I completed the Oregon Counties Challenge. Besides, I like to roam. I would not have driven down there just for that cache.

 

You posted between me and Roman. I usually quote who I am responding to. My appologies. It was not directed at you, but at the cache in the original post.

 

Okay, thought it was odd, but the cache I posted was D2T1 so I thought you might have.

 

You miss building that quote tree one time..... :lol:

Link to comment

I didn't make a special trip, I was in the area visiting my parents and pulling up random nearby caches. I checked for DNFs and it had none so went to it.

 

So you did not really waste any gas. And if you wasted more than 30 minutes, you should have pulled up the cache listing.

 

This is really a situation where one should just post an NA and move on. Not sure where all the drama is coming from.

 

No drama, I was surprised this cache existed as a virtual for 6 years, I was surprised at some of names claiming a smiley, I was surprised that this is quite common.

 

At least we have something to talk about.

Link to comment

I know virtuals are no longer allowed. But I'm not going to report something like that. That is not something that is going to give geocaching a black eye so I wouldn't fret over it.

 

If someone reported it earlier I wouldn't have wasted my time and gas searching for it, maybe it'll save someone else's time and gas.

 

I wish someone had reported it years ago, maybe there would have been a real cache for me to find.

 

Around here if a cache is missing and not replaced within a few months people start posting notes, NMs and NAs but this time they took the COs offered smiley instead of doing what they would have done had not the CO made the offer.

 

So let me get this straight--you drove miles and miles and miles and there were absolutely no other caches in the area, so it was all for naught? I'm thinking it wasn't the only cache you went for that day--but I could be wrong, maybe it was for a streak or something.

 

I don't think I've found a traditional like this, but I've found a few multis that were really virtuals--but since I did all the steps and collected all the information and sent that information to the cache owners, I counted them as finds. I just thought of them as mis-labeled virtuals rather than illegal multi caches, I guess. All the COs were active, so the emails were going to real people who were checking the info.

 

It seems like a harmless sort of problem.

Link to comment

I know virtuals are no longer allowed. But I'm not going to report something like that. That is not something that is going to give geocaching a black eye so I wouldn't fret over it.

 

If someone reported it earlier I wouldn't have wasted my time and gas searching for it, maybe it'll save someone else's time and gas.

 

I wish someone had reported it years ago, maybe there would have been a real cache for me to find.

 

Around here if a cache is missing and not replaced within a few months people start posting notes, NMs and NAs but this time they took the COs offered smiley instead of doing what they would have done had not the CO made the offer.

 

So let me get this straight--you drove miles and miles and miles and there were absolutely no other caches in the area, so it was all for naught? I'm thinking it wasn't the only cache you went for that day--but I could be wrong, maybe it was for a streak or something.

 

I don't think I've found a traditional like this, but I've found a few multis that were really virtuals--but since I did all the steps and collected all the information and sent that information to the cache owners, I counted them as finds. I just thought of them as mis-labeled virtuals rather than illegal multi caches, I guess. All the COs were active, so the emails were going to real people who were checking the info.

 

It seems like a harmless sort of problem.

 

Yes I found other caches, still wasted my time and still should not have existed for 6 years.

 

As for your multi, you didn't sign the log, you didn't earn the smiley.

 

That's my opinion anyways, I'm sure you found a way to justify counting it as a find to yourself just like those 200 people did on this cache.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I'd call b.ll on anyone that says they read every word on every cache page before going to GZ.

 

You'd be right. But if I'm making a special trip just to find a particular cache, I am going to be reading the listing and logs and probably checking Google maps before leaving the house.

 

But, if I am just looking for another cache while out looking for other caches in the area, I'm probably not going to read the cache page. That is unless I'm 20 or 30 minutes into the search. Then I'm pulling the listing up on my phone to see if I missed something. Either way, if I'm searching for another cache while out looking for other caches, I've not really wasted that much gas on 1 improperly labeled cache, am I?

 

You were just ticked because you couldn't find the cache. That is a respectable reason all on its own to be upset. But the gas and time argument are more on you than anyone else.

 

+1, and I see that indeed he was in the area for other reasons and grabbing other caches, so I really don't understand all the outrage over lost gas.

Edited by Dame Deco
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...