› Forums › Geocaching in Wisconsin › Help › 2 questions for the approvers
- This topic has 15 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 1 month ago by
jjjtba.
-
AuthorPosts
-
11/20/2005 at 9:35 am #1720288
When planning my cache run for tomorrow, I noticed that there are now two caches located very close together at the south entrance of Petrifying Springs Park in Kenosha County. Admittedly one of these is a virtual, but by my estimate, they are only 0.04 miles apart. Are virtuals exempt from the cache saturation guideline or is this something I don’t need to worry about as I plan my first cache?
Also, there is a significant number of “inactive” caches in around Racine that have been inactive for at least 5 months (most of them were apparently muggled or animuggled). What is the typical grace period before these caches are archived?
11/20/2005 at 11:13 am #1740956Virtuals will be no more in about 5 weeks. End of the year they are going away if I recall correctly.
I don’t think that will be an issue any more.
We will see what the Brians think.
11/20/2005 at 5:16 pm #1740957So in 5 weeks the permanent cache has nothing to worry about. Right now though, which ever one was placed first should get to stay. The other…uhmmmmm…temp archive at the very least!
11/20/2005 at 5:30 pm #1740958It is my understanding that LOCATIONLESS caches will be gone at the end of the year. I have heard nothing about virtual caches. I believe they will probably stick around until they die a natural death.
The guidelines clearly state that all caches must be 528′ from other caches, and the same thing holds true for virtuals.
(ahem…. not true… see my post later on in this thread)I don’t exactly know what happened here with the two caches being so close, I’m going to look into it.
One of the things on my “to do” list, is to start doing some state-wide “long-disabled” cache cleanup. Stay tuned.
[This message has been edited by Buy_The_Tie (edited 11-20-2005).]
11/20/2005 at 6:03 pm #1740959Wow! I just looked those caches up. They are VERY close! Hmmmm….wonder how that happened. (Most likely the same way one was approved about 200ft from a stage of one of Commander Bob’s multi-caches. We also thought that was a no-no. Guess not.)
Thanks for the check-up Brian!
11/20/2005 at 6:48 pm #1740960quote:
Originally posted by Buy_The_Tie:
It is my understanding that LOCATIONLESS caches will be gone at the end of the year. I have heard nothing about virtual caches.
Thanks for clearing that up. When I read miata’s post I started searching through the reviewer’s forum to see if I missed something.
11/20/2005 at 9:21 pm #1740961i beleive that i read on the geocaching forum somewhere that all locationless and virtuals are gonna be gone as of january 1st of next year. all virtuals/locationless should be converted to a waymark on waymarking.com
i guess it could just be the locationless that are leaving, but i think what i read said that since a virtual is not a real cache(no container) it falls into the same category.
UPDATE: after searching the forum everything i read before is wrong. the virtuals are grandfathered in on GC.com, but all locationless are gone. i did read that if you want to move your virtual over to waymarking,com like the locationless, you can.[This message has been edited by hogrod (edited 11-20-2005).]
11/21/2005 at 2:41 am #1740962I was discussing my two attempts at finding this same cache on the main GC forums with The Leprechauns, and he pointed me to this post by CO Admin that states that Virtuals and Webcams are no longer considered when determining the 0.1 mile guideline.
11/21/2005 at 5:46 am #174096311/21/2005 at 4:33 pm #1740964I can see where Virtuals and Web Cams could be excluded from the .1 mile rule due to the fact that they should never be confused with a physical cache nearby.
Just my 2 cents on the topic
Mike of team: Not So Lost Puppies11/21/2005 at 6:31 pm #1740965quote:
Originally posted by NSLP#1:
I can see where Virtuals and Web Cams could be excluded from the .1 mile rule due to the fact that they should never be confused with a physical cache nearby.
I don’t know…some of us are pretty easily confused. (“Maybe that camera up there is the cache container”, “Ok, you climb the tower and take it apart, while I pose for a picture.”)
11/21/2005 at 9:07 pm #1740966My bad! I thought they were all gone as of the 1st of the year. I sit corrected!
quote:
Originally posted by hogrod:
i beleive that i read on the geocaching forum somewhere that all locationless and virtuals are gonna be gone as of january 1st of next year. all virtuals/locationless should be converted to a waymark on waymarking.com
i guess it could just be the locationless that are leaving, but i think what i read said that since a virtual is not a real cache(no container) it falls into the same category.
UPDATE: after searching the forum everything i read before is wrong. the virtuals are grandfathered in on GC.com, but all locationless are gone. i did read that if you want to move your virtual over to waymarking,com like the locationless, you can.[This message has been edited by hogrod (edited 11-20-2005).]
11/22/2005 at 4:01 am #1740967OK, one more approver question. Since we can now place “real” cache locations within 0.1 miles of existing virtual caches, can we place virtual waypoints (for offset and mystery caches) within 0.1 miles of an existing real cache? I really am working on something where this might come into play. (I should think up some sort of puzzle cache based on interpreting these rules!)
11/22/2005 at 6:10 am #1740968Not an answer to the question, but I would suggest taking some time to look around for alternative places to set up caches. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I would much rather visit new locations whenever possible in the hunt for a cache. Visiting the same land 2, 3, 4, and sometimes even more times to hunt newer caches as they pop up takes a great deal of fun out of the adventure.
Cache saturation is great for an event, but overall it has a dulling effect on the sport.
[This message has been edited by Cathunter (edited 11-22-2005).]
11/23/2005 at 12:45 am #1740969quote:
Originally posted by Team Deejay:
OK, one more approver question. Since we can now place “real” cache locations within 0.1 miles of existing virtual caches, can we place virtual waypoints (for offset and mystery caches) within 0.1 miles of an existing real cache?
In most situations, yes. Each will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.