cx1

Once again an easy way to bring them back and it would satisfy most issues. 1. Make them easy to ignore on maps and PQs (believe that is already the case) 2. Make it a Premium member only feature to place them. Why not have an extra incentive to become a paying customer. 3. Only allow 1 virtual placement per year per premium account. This would eliminate the need for a 'wow' factor and stop the possibility of a virtual 'power-trail' under all but the most extreme circumstances. This would make the pro-virtual crowd satisfied, the anti-virtual crowd can easily ignore the virtuals and the poor Waymarking site can be allowed to grow in whatever direction it's members desire.

Again, what does liking or disliking the Waymarking site have anything to do with wanting new virtual caches on the geocaching site? The people who don't want virtuals to return can simply ignore them if they do return and ignore the requests for them to return in the mean time. The people who want virtuals to return can keep asking for them. It really has nothing to do with Waymarking because it has been already established that they are not quite the same thing and don't work quite the same way.

I finally logged one and now am thinking about placing one locally so people don't have to drive 100 miles to get one. Plus I though it was a nice change from standard caching. Anyway, I have a question or two about them. 1. Is requiring a stamp in the log book an ALR? Can the cache owner of a hybrid letterbox delete logs that don't have a stamped log? 2. Can the hybrid letterbox contain components of other cache types and still be listed as a hybrid? For example could it have a puzzle to solve to get the actual coordinates or be set up like a multi with the letterbox at the end and still be listed as a hybrid? Thanks

But this IS the proper forum to discuss bringing virtuals back to geocaching. If people stop saying the Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals then Waymarking would not need to be discussed here. The Waymarking people can't even get their story together. I point out that the gpx file does not contain logging requirements. 1 waymark supporter says its no big deal and that a picture will cover 99% of the logging requirements. But when discussing combining waymarks at the same location waymarker #2 states that because the logging requirements are so different for each one it would be too difficult to combine the listings. Which is it? I like to FIND virtuals. But due to an overactive reviewer my local options are very limited. And due to the policy there will not be any new ones. So then Waymarking is brought up. But Waymarking is not really set up for people who want to FIND waymarks (this is from several pro-Waymarking people), just those who want to post them.

Is there an ETA on fixing this bug?

To BruceS to save myself a big nested quote nightmare.... Rechecking, you are somewhat correct. wm3xn is different then WM3XN though. So the search is case sensitive. It makes no clear mention of this though. Geocache searches are not case sensitive. Benchmark searches are not case sensitive. For some reason Waymarks are...../shrug to me just another example of the user unfriendliness of the site. FWIW the benchmark area of this site could use some of the same attention the Waymarks need IMHO. Yes there is a link to a Waymarking page on each cache page, but it goes to another site with a different map so its really hard to tell actually how close the various waymarks are to the geocache I was just looking at. The map provider is not even the same which makes comparing them even more difficult. Why can't it be a simple google map with the geocache marked and the near-by Waypoints shown? I honestly don't want to knock on the waymark site. But when TPTB state it is the replacement for a cache type that I enjoy and would like to see more of I feel it necessary to point out the shortcoming of this 'replacement'. The reintroduction method I purposed in a previous thread eliminates 99% of the potential issues with bringing virtual caches back and has zero impact on Waymarking.

So I tried Waymarking again. Yes it has potential, maybe someday it will work as smoothly as regular geocaches but it has a long way to go. Finding waymarks near caches is a tedious affair. The GPX 'lite' files don't include logging requirments. So much for paperless Waymarking I guess. I go to log my waymark visits. I now see why visits are not often logged. Uploading field notes are not supported. So I try and search by WM number. That doesn't work. There is no simple way to re-find the waymarks you visit to log the visit. Basically I had to type in the exact name of each of the waymarks I found to be able to log them. When I uploaded my required photos there is no way to edit the photos. So a few of my pictures are sideways and I can't fix them. Now to address the easy smiley issue. People can hunt only easy caches or only hard caches or whatever type of caches that they like to hunt. What is that to anyone else? This is a game that has all sorts of ways to play it. Stating that people only want virtuals back for easy smileys is just such a completely lame argument against virtuals that is just makes me sad. It would be like saying 'well waymarks are just for people too lazy to find a real cache' This whole Waymarking/virtual thing would not really be such an issue to me if there wasn't such a biased attack against virtuals by certain members of the reviewing community. I have seen many virtuals archived in my area by a very anti-virtual reviewer. The reviewer is from several States away yet has archived many of the perfectly good virtuals around here. This smacks of a personal vendetta by the reviewer which is clearly shown in their archival activities. I do not understand the animosity by the anti-virtual crowd. A simple unchecking of a box in PQs and map pages and you never have to see virtual caches. So why is there so much energy spent trying to keep them away from everyone else? The pro-virtual group doesn't have such a simple and easy option. We can either watch them disappear or try to fight to keep them. If a person doesn't like virtuals, that's fine and dandy. Simply don't hunt them. Why take them away from those of us that do like them?

I would like to see logged visits of these waywarks vs logged visits to the geocaches. When looking for waymarks for my trip I noticed that many had never been visited even though they had been posted for a year or more. Seems like a big list of waymarks locally that no one bothers to go see. Yet geocaches always gets visits and logs (except my too difficult puzzle caches lol)

Hmm, seems the same could be said about the anti-virtual crowd. Allowing new virts does not mean Waymarking has to go away. I don't see many calls asking for your precious waymarks (which you are not even sure how to download) to be eliminated but rather most people seem to be asking for virtual caches to be brought back. I am not anti-Waymarking but rather pro-virtual caches. The problem is as it currently stands waymarks are not a satisfactory substitute for virtuals. Maybe someday it could be but why not return virtuals until Waymarking is actually a viable replacement?

Well it's not easy to find waymarks that interest me while I am searching for geocaches because waymarks are on another site. Include them as an option to be displayed on my geocaching search map and it will help perk my interest. Also there is a ton of not so cool waymarks. Wow a taco bell, yippie. My biggest gripe about waymarks is the same place having multiple listings. I go to waymark 1, hmm interesting place, waymark 2, same place not so interesting anymore. By the time you get to waymark 6, still the same place its kinda boring. And just to know, how does being a member of another cache listing site somehow invalidate having an opinion about this one?

I like it. A new twist on the typical guardrail hide. I'm sure some will complain about the ALR's but it doesn't bother me.

No link sorry, search function is well.... Anyway to paraphrase previous statements about it comparing a waymark and virtual at the same place. Waymarks require use of another website, virtuals appear right along with traditional multi's etc on the on-line maps and in the PQs. I've been planning a 3 state trip for next month. Needing to go to each cache page and then clicking to find near-by Waymarks and comparing maps on two different pages is a major time killer and makes waymarks not worth the hassle. Plus since the waymark information is not in the PQ I have to download the gpx of each waymark I may want to vist. Virtuals don't have any of that problem. The interface on Waymarking.com is not as user friendly to many people as the one on geocaching.com. Waymarking has many issues that bother people and TPTB don't seem to be in a rush to address many of them. So since we can't get the replacement for virtual caches to work as smoothly as virtual caches used to work we would like virtual caches returned.

Actually it has been explained before, you just just don't want to listen.

Won't the 1st flag you place basically cause the same error? Seems the tester would automatically start heading for the flag just as you predict the tester would start heading for the know location of the nail.

I see this as a major flaw. You end up with a person posting the same place in several different categories just to get their listing numbers up. So you get tons of waypoints in an area but all going to the same place. Not directed at quoted poster necessarily but people fret over arm-chair caching on Virtual caches, but can't you pretty much log all Waypoints without going to the place? I logged one today just to see. Give up on the argument that eliminating Virtual caches can open areas up to Traditional ones. As long as Earthcaches are an option that argument is full of fail. Ideas for bringing Virtual caches back.... Make them for Premium Members only, doesn't hurt to add another perk to get people to pay. Only allow 1 Virtual cache placement per account per year. That would pretty much eliminate the possible Virtual power-trail possibility. Give up on the Wow factor. If someone wants to use their Virtual to get people to go see something lame (to you) so what? Someone else may find it neat or at least a nice change from the typical LPC or ammo box under the sticks full of junk. I would hunt for a boot in the forest to see if it was the left or right and have more fun doing it then hunting the micro in the bush in the forest. Plus with only getting one per year most people wouldn't 'waste' their Virtual on a lame place.

Because it shows the example of the double standard when it comes to listing caches. Needing to pay hundreds of dollars for training and equipment needed to log a scuba cache or having a boat of some kind for other water caches is all fine and dandy but possibly needing to spend maybe $2 for a few pay phone calls (or cell phone calls they are not 'free' either )and all sorts of issues arise. People generally suggest ignoring the caches you do not want to make the investment in to log (be it time, training, equipment or whatever). I am applying that same logic to this potential cache idea. If you are unwilling to pay for a payphone call or unwilling to use a text messaging service to get to the next stage of a multi-cache then simply don't do the cache. Asking the cache owner to allow cell phone usage because it is cheaper or easier for you would be the same as asking the scuba cache be moved into the shallow water so I can just snorkel for it since that's easier and cheaper for me. The CO stated that the incoming phone calls to the voice recording are filtered by caller ID. So calls from phone booth 'A' get one message while calls from phone booth 'B' get a completely different message based on the phone number of each phone booth. How would using a cell phone fit into that? Some caches require rock climbing training, that isn't free Some caches require paying entry fees to get to the cache location, that isn't free Earthcaches have all sorts of additional logging requirements which demand extra equipment other then a gps and a pen which isn't free But all those caches are non-commercial even though someone somewhere is making money on the non-free parts of them This cache requires a few phone calls which also are not free, but this somehow violates the rules and makes it a commercial cache?

No, some of us 'complaining' don't feel we should have to use a different website with different rules and a different interface to do what used to be done here.

Yippie my 1st double post, I hope I get a smiley

Thanks, that provided another example. Virtual Caches I can sort by distance, Waymarks don't have that either. The other caching sites? *YAWN* You know how many caches on TC that are within 50 miles of me? Zero And if someone likes to collect smileys what is wrong with that?

Or maybe people who can't or don't text message could skip this cache just like the people who can't or don't scuba dive skip the caches that involve diving? Possible solution other then Paypal.... I don't know the hardware you are using to do the caller ID etc, so I don't know if this would be possible with your set-up. Is there a way to set-up your system to auto-dial the 1st phone booth like say once an hour? Then if phone is answered it dials the next phone booth say 10 minutes (or however long is reasonable to get to the next location) later. If 2nd or later phones are not answered the system restarts back on phone 1. Possibly set it up to only ring each phone 2 times so it will not get too many muggles answering and the cacher has to be at the phone waiting. Personally I have no problem paying the 50 cents at each phone though lol

Virtual caches show up on my map page, Waymarks don't Virtual caches show up in my PQs, Waymarks don't Virtual caches show up on my iphone app, Waymarks don't Virtual caches allow uploading field notes from my gps, Waymarks don't When I search for Virtual caches near-by each entry is a unique location whereas on Waymarks the first 17 are all the same place. Don't believe me, do a search on both sites for zip code 47801 . For those that are fans of Waymarking, I have a question. Right now Premium membership is free on Waymarking if you are a Premium member of Geocaching.com. Would you be willing to continue to support Waymarking if you had to pay $30/yr for it as well? I also wonder how many Premium members the Waymarking site has that are not geocachers, or in other words how many Premium members just paid for Waymarking.

Best bet is to explain your situation to the new cache owner that beat you to the area. Maybe they would let you adopt their cache and you could make it part of a multi with your container and location as the final. Or maybe they could archive theirs to free up the area for yours. Now don't expect them to agree to any of this, some people are very weird when it comes to accommodating requests from others but it couldn't hurt to try.

There is software that can take a stereogram image and bring out the 3-d image. I have a terrible time trying to see the hidden images. Google stereogram decoder if you are interested.

In hindsight logging them differently is a very good idea, but once the damage is already done.......lol the first time I ran it I ended up with 20 FTFs when in truth I only had 5. Thankfully (or sadly, depending on how you look at it) I don't have too many FTFs to worry about it and any new ones I try to remember to just check the FTF box in the edit.

This sounds like an awesome idea for a multi. I find it hard to believe there would be too many people that would get in a huff over paying for a couple of phone calls for a well executed and adventurous cache (some of the forum regulars are not a very good sample population of the average geocacher and will nit-pick anything). There are many caches in places that require an entrance fee that are published here. I personally don't see how a few quarters to finish a cache is that much different. Would it be a possible solution to allow phone call cost repayment via something like Paypal to satisfy those few who feel that everything must be free? Once their logs are verified they could be sent the reimbursement for the phone calls required to complete the cache. I would hope (and expect) about 99.9% of the people that would do this cache would not ask for repayment of the paltry call cost.