Happy Humphrey

I'm sure there are people who would lie for a smiley. I choose to take people at face value until I learn otherwise. I'm the same and wouldn't accuse anyone of lying without real evidence. But I'm not proposing making any accusations, just asking for a little more information.

You have to consider the possibility that the enquiry isn't actually genuine, but an effort to wheedle out the puzzle coordinates (or a good hint)...so if he/she is unwilling to provide coordinates I'd remain cautious about giving anything away.

Not neccesarily. At some point pictures hosted at gc.com got lost, and it can easily happen that what is displayed on gc.com is not what you want to get displayed. For example you use the _l links too for your pictures and in your case this might not be an issue or even intended, but not in all cases it's intended. It's easier to work with a picture hosting site where you exactly know how it behaves. Of course the backside is that it makes cache descriptions dependent on another site. So the better solution would be improvements/changes at gc.com. Well, all I can say is that I've not seen a problem. My caches set in 2004 still have their pictures, even though most are now archived. I wonder how many of these would still be available unchanged had I used free photo hosting sites.

I think that this is the decider. The bird box might be big enough and waterproof enough for a full-size log book and for trackables, in which case it's a small/regular sized cache. But if it's just meant for camouflage, and swaps/trackables wouldn't be safe then it's a micro. I once had a cache that was a magnetic nano, inside the lid of a large ammo box. I made it clear that the cache was a micro and that the log had to be signed - if there appeared to be no log sheet then you hadn't found the container. A way of hiding a nano in the woods without causing too much frustration.

A small point is that you can delete the image from the gallery once you've used it for the cache description and it will remain in the cache description. This is useful if you have a lot of images to use but don't want them cluttering up the gallery or taking up space with links. An example might be where you want to include a spoiler photo to help with the final find but you don't want it to be just one of many photo links. I always use the gc.com upload facility for cache images, on the basis that they are as guaranteed to work as the cache description itself.

I do this for caches where I expect that a good proportion of people will have had to go well out of their way. But as you say, only the minimum... Check the spoiler photo.

I agree with you, bruce0. The use of "deserve" is deliberate, but what I meant is that I'd feel like I deserved to award myself the find. I see it as a line, below which it's a DNF. Although on the face of it a "find" sounds totally objective; as we've seen above, it's not quite as simple as "no signature, no find". So I think that we need to draw a line where we feel that a minimum "find" standard has been reached (the Royal "we", perhaps?). For instance, a logbook that's so soaked that trying to gouge a signature would only cause it damage is replaced without further marks but counts as a Find. Or where a companion actually completes the easy find and it's clearly a waste of time putting the container back and you then making a show of retrieving it again. Just on the other side of the line might be a cache where the main challenge is identifying the camouflaged container - you might decide to have the container replaced unseen and have a go yourself and regard anything less as a DNF. I think that the awkward "team find" scenario just comes down to a weakness of geocaching.com. You're stuck with a single user ID and this doesn't really fit well with a team session, where the caches are logged by the group and all members don't necessarily sign the log (or even handle it). Ideally you'd be able to create a "Team" user ID (even if only just for the day) and have all finds logged under the team ID - team members would then each receive a team log for each cache logged. The Team ID could then be retained or deleted but the team finds would remain.

Acceptable in the sense of "letting a find log stand" yes, otherwise not necessarily. For example, I do not regard it as acceptable to battleship the final coordinates of a mystery or multi cache. It's very bad style. I don't agree with that. My personal guideline is that it's a treasure hunt where if you find the logbook and actually handle it, and this was due to your own endeavours, then you deserve the find. So if you simply receive the coordinates from someone else it's not deserved; but (for instance) if you surmise a likely location from the hint and cache description and you're correct - then following the multi or cracking the puzzle is pointless jumping through hoops. It's up to the cache owner to guard his cache, which includes deleting over-informative logs and photos. When it comes to situations where there's an unexpected hindrance to signing the log, I'm comfortable leaving a DNF if the container is rusted up or frozen. Why wouldn't I? I've been offered "finds" for caches that were unretrievable but always refuse. If the log book is in your hands but unsignable then it's a Find - if it's mush then you could still make a mark on it but it's a futile gesture. The biggest grey area is where several others are with you. If they're in your "team" the find is a team find, even though you all sign as individuals. This would include a scuba cache when one of the team makes the retrieval. If they're other cachers, you'd have to judge how critical the hiding place is to the cache experience. If it was really cleverly hidden I'd walk away rather than sign (and return when the coast is clear), but if it's a standard hide it seems a waste of time to go through a charade before "finding" it.

Despite my question above no-one seems to be saying that the number of bigger caches (ammo boxes or otherwise) has done anything but increase, so for fans of that type of hide I think that we can conclude that it's all good. As I pointed out, the number of bigger containers around here has multiplied tenfold. OK, micros have multiplied a hundredfold in the same period but anyone that wants a walk and a capacious container can use a simple filter to obtain a list of likely targets. Perhaps the point is that people are expecting a good proportion of new hides to be ammo boxes and the like. Obviously that isn't going to happen; even with the will to make this the case the hider comes up against the limited availability of decent hiding places and problems with access and permission. It seems very likely that in most areas the prime locations for such hides are going to be taken first, and we're probably past the second phase of less-ideal but still good locations.

If we all feel that strongly about logging finds on-line than Groundspeak should make it a requirement of using the service. They haven't and probably won't because the freedom of playing this game the way you want to play it is one of the aspects that makes it great. But with that freedom comes an understanding that everyone doesn't play the game as you do. What I was trying to say is that you might find caches and never sign any logbook (online or physical). You could even deem it a find just by seeing the cache from a distance. As Groundspeak cannot possibly have any control over this there's no question of a "requirement". I can imagine that some people might be interested in the walk and the cache find but simply don't want to be bothered with the admin. As long as the vast majority do log online I don't see a problem.

Ammo cans are expensive, difficult to source, and quickly get stolen. So no surprise that there aren't many new ones being placed. Where I am at the moment, in the "good old days" there were about 30 caches within 30 miles, with a mix of cache sizes. Nowadays, if you ignore micros altogether there are just over 300 traditional caches. I'm sure that's fairly typical. I don't get how that means that it's not as good as it used to be or that the choice has got more limited.

So...if someone goes to your cache and finds it (and puts it back as found) and doesn't log it at all, is that still "wrong"? He/she might just keep a personal tally of finds (or not bother). It's pretty much the same as signing the log in the field but not online. I quite like having the option of NOT logging online, although I feel an obligation to the cache owner.

Long distance hiking caches are common in the UK but I've never seen one set up as a single cache. It would probably never be logged. Normally they are a series of caches, perhaps following a standard Long Distance Footpath. I take "long distance" to mean more than a handful of km, by the way. Nowadays I'd expect a major hike to be set up as a Geotour perhaps, or at least as a team effort with several people allocated sections to maintain. Whether the final is a virtual or not isn't really much of a factor. I'd have thought that most people would want a physical log at the end of the walk - they certainly like them along the way. As far as adding your virtual to Waymarking, of course if you don't see a suitable category you can always create one. If you're keen to add a virtual you'll not have too much trouble, but I suspect that you're looking for excuses here not trying to work out how to et one up. I don't understand your point "history caches with an educational focus" not being offered on Waymarking. Add your own then! I've seen plenty on there, however, that I would associate with "history" and that explain the history in an educational way. Anyway, nice to discuss this again but I think that we've all made our points well enough now!

Vieux Sémaphore - I went there twice (2013 and 2014) despite being a long walk from the road (and 800 miles from home!). The second time I thought I'd found it, and logged it as such. After all, it was on the coordinates and was a standard container with "geocaching" mentioned on the label and a well-used log book. Later, on translating the latest note from the CO I realised that I'd found a "wrong"box (at the same spot as the cache) so I had to change my log to another DNF (the first time I found nothing, but it seems that the cache was missing then). The owner archived the cache eventually after too many "found" logs on the incorrect container. I'm not sure why he didn't simply remove the duplicate though.

Well, yes, but in the days when virtual caches were allowed that one would most likely still have been classed a multicache. I'm not saying that multicaches can be easily converted to Waymarks (even though the Cregneash example I gave earlier is in fact a multi). And of course you could convert GC1FPN1 easily enough to a single Waymark, put it in a suitable category (or create a new one), and state that you require a password before a log is allowed to stand. It's surprising that that one gets so many finds - in the UK a multi has to be pretty simple and quick before it gets attempted. I suspect that if you converted it to a Virtual (by special dispensation) the number of finds would drop off significantly. If it was a Waymark it would be pretty much the same experience but would attract no logs. Generally, very lengthy multicaches like that are converted to geocache trails, where you log each stage as a separate traditional and pick up clues to the location of the final "bonus" cache. But that's another discussion! Anyway, this discussion is academic as virtuals aren't going to be "brought back"...in my opinion they're better off out of the way in Waymarking and all geocaches should have a container to log in the field.

Good example. That's the 4th waymark in the list...and it's also the 5th, exactly the same waymark, even exactly the same picture, by the same person, just in a different category. Then the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th in the list are the same park, just different elements of it. Also, all the waymarks on the page are by the same person. And I'm not sure how you picked this random location, but although the first page might be vaguely interesting locations, in the second page we get into the fastfood joints and by the third page they dominate. Don't tell me I don't do waymarks because I don't get credit for them in my geocaching found count. I think you need to tweak your settings if too many irrelevant categories appear. And I chose one of your caches as my random location (plus, I've been there!). The fact that there are several "locationless" type waymarks in the same area (and that this one is in more than one category) is a good illustration of what I was saying about the weakness of Waymarking. With a little adjustment these problems could be eliminated and you'd satisfy the requirements of the old-fashioned Virtual bagger (which is what this thread is about). I'd suggest an indicator on each Waymark listing to allow the owner to signify whether the Waymark listing is meant to be logged (i.e. "Virtual Cache" style) or whether it's really a Category log (which could still be logged itself, but this is not expected). At the moment there's too much emphasis on the Categories, and sometimes the Category isn't the focus but the location. Then if you're looking for interesting places to visit in an area that aren't merely examples of a category, a search filter would be available so you can view only those that the owner has set up to be visited. The Category owners could be in charge of reviewing this, so as to prevent too many anomalies. A side effect would be that a lot of unlogged listings wouldn't look quite so unloved. Another side effect is that your logs on this type of Waymark could feed a statistic on your geocaching profile...

The only contradictory example you came up with is your own virtual, which is quite unusual but which I didn't think could not be converted to a Waymark. The reason you thought that it couldn't was because of dummy coordinates. I still haven't seen one that couldn't be a Waymark so it seems that from my point of view the argument stands.

I understand that such things are not to your taste, but the discussion was "bring back virtuals" and I don't see how you not liking it doesn't make it a "virtual". The typical virtual cache (of which I've logged a few) requires you to log the cache by going to the coordinates and viewing the item of interest...quite often including a requirement to post a photo of yourself with GPSr, or to answer a question that the CO imagines is only possible to get correct by actually visiting. Much though you hate the photo activity it's quite accepted practice, and your option to not log it because there is no "activity" beyond this is simply your own preference. The "question and answer" is usually more about weeding out fake find logs than for any educational purpose. Personally I'd rather leaving logging open with no requirements at all.

Going back to the "nails in trees" posts: I'm not sure exactly which guideline this is breaking. There seems to be no suggestion that nails seriously damage mature trees (even copper ones). However, in some parts of the world you might be breaking the law. "Tree spiking" was declared a federal felony in the United States in 1988 (I think that a federal felony is one where you go to prison for a year or more). Possibly a small nail wouldn't be regarded as a tree spike, but I wouldn't like to risk it. The purpose of the law is to protect timber workers from potential injury. So, guidelines apart, I wouldn't advise using any substantial nail to support a geocache. Even if the nail is in place already I wouldn't want to be associated with it in any way.

I accept your word that one could set up something just like a virtual cache as a waymark, but there'd be no point since no one would notice. It's true that a large part of that is that few would care because it wouldn't count as a find on geocaching.com, and the even larger part is that it wouldn't show up on geocaching.com maps or lists. But even if someone was interested in going beyond geocaching.com to look for it, it would be impossible to find on the site because it wouldn't stand out from the multitude of waymarks that are nothing like virtual caches. Hmm. To test this out I chose a random (almost) geocache in California and did a Waymark search. 4th in the list is Mape Memorial Park Arch - eminently loggable, but no-one has - despite it being easy to spot. Bear in mind that I have many categories suppressed so your results may not be the same and you may see more "Locationless" types. In my view, though, it was a mistake that there isn't an indicator to say whether your Waymark is designed to be logged (i.e. it's in the Virtual game rather than the Locationless). So I agree that Groundspeak would need to do some more work on Waymarking to make it more popular and to make searches more useful, but my point is that there are "virtuals" on there if you can be bothered, and yet people don't log many of them. My conclusion is that they aren't as attractive a concept as some people seem to think. Had Jeremy continued with the project to amalgamate Waymarking and Geocaching stats (which he told me about personally), and to further develop Waymarking, I think we'd have less of the "Bring Back Virtuals!" threads.

Yes, if you're playing the "Locationless" game then a photo is likely to be a requirement. It's not much to ask though, when almost everyone has at least a phone camera, and if you don't like that category then you can always make it disappear. If you're logging a waymark though, they rarely ask for photos. The reason I don't like the EC questions is that I don't like filling in forms or questionnaires in my leisure time. It's boring work, and I don't want to waste time on dull stuff when I don't have to. I'll read the EC description and maybe learn something whilst studying the feature, but I don't then feel the need to write notes or spend time checking on answers to questions. Part of the attraction of Geocaching is its simple and casual nature, without excessive rules or admin. I tend to post a note to thank the CO for the information and point out that I visited (unfortunately this often puzzles them and they offer to help with the answers, but I'm quite happy not to post a "find").

I'd say that the first problem to overcome is why Groundspeak should put in all that effort to duplicate an aspect of Waymarking that is already in place. No-one has convinced me that you cannot presently set up a "virtual" if you want to. Hence the conclusion that they aren't attractive in themselves, but only if loggable on Geocaching. On Earthcaches; I don't log them (because of the silly questionnaires that you have to fill in) although I do take notice of them. In my view they belong back in the Waymarking fold with all the other "virtuals". I understand why some virtuals are left in Geocaching, but as I understand it, the only reason for Earthcaches being here are that there was pressure applied to move them from Waymarking.

I suppose that it's a chicken-and-egg situation. If people had created lots of virtual-style waymarks years ago you'd see plenty around and they'd be more popular so more would get created. It seems more popular to partake in the Locationless variant - at least you know that wherever you go there are going to be innumerable waymarks of this type! In my experience most people just aren't that interested in creating virtuals, except in the situation that they wanted to create a geocache but can't be bothered with the inconvenience and admin of placing a physical cache. Just think of the possibilities if it was a free-for-all: power trails of several thousand virtuals, almost guaranteed to need no maintenance.

You have N 47° 04.200 E 015° 25.800 for your virtual. I used N 54° 04.243 W 004° 45.961 for my waymark/virtual (which correspond to a parking area a short walk away). Both are equally meaningless from the cache point of view. Again, if Groundspeak had cared to develop the idea further they could have incorporated more sophisticated searches. But obviously you can simply ignore categories and do searches by location, no worse than on gc.com. That's fine, but some people seem to get the idea that Waymarking = locationless and I was just trying to emphasise that this isn't the case.

I did say that Groundspeak have ignored Waymarks and could have made them better, so arguing that there are certain weaknesses which would compromise your particular idea doesn't mean that waymarks cannot be used in the same way as virtuals. Actually I didn't see in your virtual any obvious problem, or at least not worse than the gc.com weakness that it's a Mystery cache but also a Virtual but there is no way to express this. Generally a virtual consists of going to a location and finding something (not a cache) then logging it online (with the option of a casual verification stage, i.e. a message to the CO in an attempt to prove that the log is genuine). I really don't see how that isn't covered by a waymark such as mine, where you go to the museum and then log it. The category is handy, in that if you liked that History Museum you can quickly find others...and if you didn't like it then you can remove it and all similar from your view. I wonder whether others get a little confused by the "other" type of waymark, where you find something that fits into a category. A very popular example is Victorian Post Boxes, where you aren't likely to log one that has been found but you "log" the category when you find an example (i.e. Locationless cache).