[GeoStL] Re: Geocaching.com & Virtuals

  • From: "Mike Griffin" <griff@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:47:57 -0500

Chris, I would be willing to bet if you talked to them about caching, they 
might maintain a cache for you at the Science Center. Afterall we are using a 
science to find these things.. You show them what it's all about and ask them 
to maintain a cache at the visitors desk where they can get a small trinket in 
return for answering your virtual questions. I bet they would go for it!!


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chris Binder 
  To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 6:15 AM
  Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Geocaching.com & Virtuals

  yeah...but do you think the science center would not know:
  a) What geocaching even is?
  b) Why there's a micro cache under the top-left nosebleed seat?

  I usually don't get down there too often, so an actual cache that would need 
maintaining is out of the question. I'm just trying to make geocaching look 
good...not have the bio-terrorism truck out in front of the SLSC. :-)


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Dave Keiser 
    To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 7:32 PM
    Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Geocaching.com & Virtuals

    Your frustrations are valid. But, from a land manager's perspective, I'm 
sure they'd rather have virtuals in their parks. They might wonder why there's 
a virtual at the Science Center while they have to put up with a yucky 
tupperware full of trash in their own park. And if they all opt for virtuals, 
then geocaching really becomes geoplaquefinding.

    As far as the science center goes, you could easily do an offset 
cache/multi cache with Forest Park right there. Use the sign in the Science 
center to compute the waypoint for a cache, force the cacher to walk over the 
highway overpass (seeing MORE of the science center) and exit the old 
planetarium to find a microcache or something. Glenn would approve that in a 
heartbeat. Or, if you have the guts and willingness to maintain it, place a 
microcache magnetic key holder under one of the permanent exhibits (with 
permission, of course). Or, make it really difficult and pick a seat in the 
IMAX theater to place it under!!! The hint could be 'top left nosebleed seat'. 
Or, I'm sure RGS could figure out how to get a microcache planted on the 
dinosaur! Ok, I'm getting a little out of hand. Sorry.

    Dave (fullquiver)

    On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 05:14 PM, Chris Binder wrote:

      Ok...before you just haul off on me...just know that the following 
statements are explicitly my opinion and I'm not taking a shot at *gln or 
anyone over at geocaching.com.
          First off...My Science Center Virtual Cache wasn't approved...I kind 
of understand why...but seriously, many of us don't get a chance to go on down 
to the SLSC too often, and some of us have kids that dictate when, if ever, we 
all go to the science center. Honestly, I make the effort to make a cache 
that's good for the entire family. It's not one of those "hit-and-run" virtual 
caches that you can do over a lunch break. It's a cache that you need to park 
and find a sign inside of a building. It brings business to the science center, 
and allows families who don't get down there too often, to reward themselves 
for visiting with a cache find.
          Secondly, how do you feel on this issue: We buy the receiver. Some of 
us buy a charter membership. And geocaching.com dictates what the entire world 
of geocaching can and cannot do? :-) Personally...I like the website...I like 
the camaraderie that goes on in this newsgroup and in SLAGA. I like what SLAGA 
is doing. My problem is why geocaching.com is complaining on the number of 
          I'm not completely finished yet. I'm offering something constructive 
to say, bear with me: We all should work on a separate rule list that applies 
to virtual caches only. Like: No other virtuals within a .50 or a .75 mile 
radius. Or all virtuals should be above a rating of 2.0/1.0. Those are my 
thoughts. Thanks for listening. :-)

Other related posts: