What do you think about Locationless caches?
   (Email us your thoughts.  We'll post them here.)

 

BruceS - (7/17/02)
I am not against Locationless caches they just seem backwards to me. I like coordinates first and then find instead find and get then coordinates. The sequence of events for a locationless cache are more like those of hiding a cache rather than finding one. I do plan on reviewing the locationless caches listed for ideas of where to put traditional or virtual caches. Some of the types of locations that are listed for locationless caches very good locations for regular caches to be placed.

 

Barramus - (6/2/02)
I thought they were cool when they first appeared, I even logged a few of them. But now they are out of control. I see them as just a way for someone to inflate there find count or hidden count. If someone wants to document where they saw a yellow jeep, I suppose that's ok. But just don't do it on geocaching.com.  My new hated locationless cache, see an animal in the wild, log it as a find. PLEASE, get a life.

 

konopapw - (5/28/02)

I'm more of a purist, in that I'd rather hunt Traditional or Multi-caches, where there is a container to find and a log book to write in.  I'd even settle for hunting a Virtual cache, which may be a waterfall, but it is only ONE particular waterfall you can consider a find.  Still, I don't get the same thrill of the hunt unless there is a findable cache.  That's sad in a way because a waterfall should be much more appreciated than a Tupperware container in the woods.

The best thing I can say for a Locationless cache, however, is that it is 'something to do'.  It reminds me of counting Volkswagen Beetles as a kid, when I was on a long road trip.  Something to do.  In terms of counting it as a geocaching find?  I'll pass.  Maybe cachers are bored with the Traditional cache and have to find ways to keep themselves interested in the sport.  The closest I have come to logging a Locationless cache is finding a benchmark in the town of Pacific, MO.  I justified to myself that finding a benchmark had a little more significance than taking a picture in front of a welcome sign of a city that starts with the letter 'Z'.  You don't need a GPS for that!  Jeremy Irish has started a new section of www.geocaching.com just for the finding and logging of benchmarks, so they are getting more consideration than Locationless caches.

I know geocachers who have tried to log a Locationless cache find and been denied because they didn't follow all the rules laid out by the person creating the cache page.  You can go all the way around the world and take your picture in front of a country's capital building, but if you forget to display your GPS in the picture ... DENIED!  Just like any other cache, the rules are at the discretion of the cache creator, but they tend to be sillier on Locationless caches.  The 'Timing' is Everything Locationless cache is a good example.

Although it is nice to reach a milestone, like say your first 100 finds, my goal has never been to rack up numbers.  In a way I find it hard to knock anyone who has recorded a Locationless cache as a find.  On www.geocaching.com, finding a */* cache and a *****/***** cache both equate to 1 find.  So your total number of finds tells nothing about what you experienced during the hunt or under what circumstances you got  to the cache.

 

thunder_monk

I like the Virtual caches in that I can log some caches here in my home town because otherwise I need to travel a ways to find them....The only caches right now in the town of Rolla are the ones that I have put out ...though I have found several cachers interested and there may be more soon :) ....There are some really interesting ideas out there for virtual caches and I have enjoyed reading and following some of the historical ones especially.

 The flip side of course is that some of them are a bit ridiculous and I think Virtual caches should be monitored a bit to keep the silly ones out ....I mean finding a yellow Volkswagen or locating a certain type of motorcycle is a bit extreme and very unpractical since the coordinates are no longer valid as soon as they move. There is no way of proving a cache has been found and it is a way to run your total count up with no effort.

 My opinion is that Virtual caches should have a way of proving that you have found the item or items beyond a doubt and that the object cannot be movable or should I say mobile. They should also have a purpose for teaching or learning ....I mean a cache to find a person called Bill or Mary would be rather silly and there is no purpose to it other than making your total count higher.....Virtual caches have a place and they can be good but let's make them count for something and draw the line at the nonsense ones.

 

RGS

I think the ideas are good on some of them and could lead to interesting pictures and websites developed from the logs.

I've always enjoyed waterfalls and try to go to some when I'm on vacation. Having non-tourist falls with  locations could be fun. Same with the trains since I've always enjoyed riding trains and lived 5 houses from the tracks when the steam trains would go by. Get your kicks on Rt. 66 is a neat theme since it goes right through MO and I enjoy those kind of rides.

Now the Yellow Jeep (what's next, a red Dodge PU :-) ), are a little far fetched.

I've logged finds on some of these, but I think that is kind of lame to just take a picture and get the find. I really think that these type caches should have just one option of "log a note", but then the activity on these caches would probably be nil.

Jeremy could  differentiate between the two types of caches and have separate counts for the finds, but I would imagine that would be a major change for the DB and website.