robert

Maybe it's the ampersand.

I'm glad I chose 'robert' for my username, yours is a doozy for a cell phone! I'm anxious to see it up and running again as well, but being patient as I know everyone is busy.

Little Cache Bug

Email sent, we'll get you taken care of!

I think you meant to say contact@geocaching.com

You can create multiple waymarks out of a single location. I have several that fit multiple categories, it's actually quite a bit of fun to find one spot and see multiple possibilities: Example. I love doing that.... I don't have one with 8, but 4 was my best thusfar... I think.

So...go create some and add to the nine. So create one and then go find my own waymark! Wow! What a surprise that would be! My point was that masses are not creating them..... I think the point was instead of saying that there aren't any, create one and hopefully others will follow. If you live in an area with only 9 caches, are you going to just sit back and give up, or will you hide your own hoping others will follow suit?

You could replace the word "Virts" with "Waymarks". It's all personal preference--what you find to be "really fun" someone else might find to be "not very entertaining". If people would find the categories they find interesting and focus on those (rather than the lame McDonald's argument), I think more would enjoy Waymarking. Too much time and energy is wasted in shooting it down based on one or two categories. Might be because it's harder to define such a location than it is a historical marker or covered bridge, but not having done any of them, that's just a guess. I do know what one of the 'secret' locations is (the one by flyingmoose) and it's quite cool--but I don't know that I am aware of anything else that would fit that category. Rather than put a code somewhere at GZ (is it graffiti or an existing code?), why not just put an actual cache there?

Based on this (and previous threads of yours), might I suggest trying both just to see how it all shakes out? I'm with everyone else, shouldn't have put it in the cache if it wouldn't fit. I've had TBs that wouldn't fit into a cache I had found, I just held it a little longer til I found one that it would fit into.

I'm not. I thought the point of this thread was to figure out how to get virts going again. I was addressing other people's concerns about crappy virts being created on Waymarking. That's an easy issue to address with a function already available on Waymarking:

If this were true than isn't that what Waymarking is? Not quite sure what your question is. If you're saying Waymarking is crap, you missed my point entirely. Let's keep this civil. I never said that Waymarking was crap. My point was that geocachers were told that virtuals and locationless caches were being moved to Waymarking. So if you think that most virtuals were crap then it is you that is implying what the new waymarks will be like. Like I said before the peer review could have solved the issue on GC with poor virts being approved. So I think Waymarking has a better chance of getting good virts to fly. But how do YOU, TrailGators, determine what is a "good virt"? Personal preference? If you think a covered bridge makes a cool virt, but I don't, we have a problem. Waymarking gives you the chance to list it, regardless of whether or not anyone thinks it's cool ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and all that jazz) Then it's up to those who do think it's cool to add more and visit the ones that are already listed. Those who don't think so can move on to another category they find interesting. Rating waymarks would help the good ones rise to the top, but in a lot of ways it's still all entirely subjective.

Where is there a category for cool covered bridges? I see one for covered bridges. Where is the category for cool historic marker? I see several for historic markers, but none say cool. Virutals caches that passed the wow test were wow. Waymarks might be wow - if you like covered bridges or historic markers. You have no way of knowing otherwise. Perhaps we need a waymark rating system I don't feel a Wow feeling looking at benchmarks, so I ignore the category. I think covered bridges and historic markers are cool so I do look at those. Best Kept Secrets is not a suprise category. While we encourage write-up that don't give away what you'll find thats not a requirement. Look at the waymarks in this category and see that several tell you right in the description what you will find. My bad, I drew the wrong parallel--I'll edit my post. I see you agreed with me that the category would be as close to the "Virtual cache" category as TG is looking for. edit: dadgum tags

If this were true than isn't that what Waymarking is? Not quite sure what your question is. If you're saying Waymarking is crap, you missed my point entirely. Maybe sometime there will be a case where there isn't time to review multis, wonder what those threads will be like! Waymarks aren't reviewed for how cool or crappy they are, they're reviewed for how well they fit the guidelines category requirements. If they fit, they get added. If not, they don't.

And don't forget to visit the NoVAGO website!

The whole point of virts is that you don't know exactly what to expect. Virts are a surprise. People that enjoy virts understand the difference. sbell111 has a valid point, though. There is a category for virtual type locations, it's just not called that. It'll be a bit closer to the 'surprise' that you're looking for, though I prefer the category structure myself. edit: fixing a mistake.

New virtuals are not allowed on Geocaching so there is a need. But how do you decide what goes in that category? How do you define a virtual cache? Is it a cool covered bridge? Already a category for that. A cool historic marker? Already a category for that. Cool statue or monument? Already a category for that. Seems to me there already is a category for virtuals, and it's the entire wm.com database. You keep bringing up the "wow" factor. Virtuals never had that requirement until right before their demise. So forget about the "wow" factor and let the Waymark approvers review and decide which ones they want for their category. It could work with this review system! Isn't that exactly what was happening on gc.com? Loads of virts were submitted that were just plain crap. Because of this, the reviewer team started to apply the Wow factor to "decide which ones they wanted for their category", and these so-called caches were declined. Really it seems you've just suggested taking a step back instead of forward. Now everything can be listed, and you can filter out what you feel to be crap.

JPatton put together a list of caches near the DC Metro. http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...80-ebdbdf05e04c Not sure how up-to-date it is but it's an excellent reference.

On a cache listing, there is a link for "Nearest waymarks", and on a waymark listing there is a list for "Nearest geocaches".

Click the button just above that list of categories.

That's the same on both Mac and PC, but on the Mac you can't hold the control key to select individual items on the list, which was the reason for the original post. The instructions on a cache page for dropping multiple TBs suggest using the control key: "If you dropped off more than one, hold Ctrl down and click on each bug to drop off."

Got mine 12/12, placed it 12/16, and it's already been picked up and moved on its way!

The trick with ImageShack is to NOT use the "Forums" link(s) it gives you, but use the "Direct" link. It gives you "Forums", "Sites", "Friends", etc. Use use image button above, then paste in the "Direct" link ImageShack gives you. You're done.

Oh THANKS. Now I've got a mental image of some weirdo standing in the woods with a scrap of paper and singing a list of names like an operatic tenor.... Watch the Jim Carrey version of "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" and you get something very similar to this.

Not sure it completely answers your question but you can download the event date to your calendar from the event page itself. There's a little button next to the "Hidden:" date which will import into Outlook. An RSS feed for states and/or countries would be cool, but this might help in the meantime.