Sov

1.9k · August 17, 2005

I understand exactly what you are saying and I see your point. It needs fixed and a process put in place. While I don't have a perfect solution, I also don't think moving it to another site is the answer. I do think that a virtual is a cache. A cache is the combination of the entire hourney, adventure, sights, and history,not just the signing of the log book and trading of McToys. What would be wrong with a process like the Earthcaches had/have? A group of people who can vote on it and take the responsibility off of the approvers? I don't think everything needs to be a virt and agree 1005 with you on that, but there are places that are more than just a database of points that contain addional related metadata that defines each point. Some deserve to not just be lumped into a category or sub-category with every other plain jane bar or flag pole or lighthouse. These are the ones that stand out from amongst their own groupings but are held back by their naming/grouping. These are the ones that when you visit you say wow. These are the ones that deserve to be seperated from the pack and be brought back as virts. I am sure there are enough people there at Groundspeak that could make a better litmus testing process than I can think of off the top of my head, but from the discussions here and from other geo-groups, people seem to miss the virts already. Why not run a poll and let the people decide?

8k · August 17, 2005

That seems incredibly burdensome.

To say the least.

This is extremely subjective legalese babble.

No offense but it only seems to provoke more controversy.

I could be wrong but I read his category suggestion as a tongue-in-cheek indictment of just how rediculous the new system will be. It seems to solve nothing that it meant to solve. It is as if, rather than try to regulate some sort of control over the lameness issue by way of solid guidelines, they simply transplanted it to another site that they and we don't have to look at unless by choice.

Actually it was meant to show that the new system is highly flexible and could be made to create categories that would correspond to what the OP and others felt were reasons to keep virtuals as geocaches. I doubt anyone would want to manage a category as large as all virtuals but there will undoubtly be categories that will allow a person to find lots of interesting points in an area that essentially the only thing they have in common will be that the visitor will go "Cool, I had no idea this was here"

The point is that the new system allows these to be removed from geocaching.com so that the reviewers won't have to enforce a subjective guideline. Instead each category manager will enforce their own guidelines. If you don't like the guideline, you can find another category, or start your own, that will list your waymark.

9.4k · August 17, 2005

The point is that the new system allows these to be removed from geocaching.com so that the reviewers won't have to enforce a subjective guideline. Instead each category manager will enforce their own guidelines. If you don't like the guideline, you can find another category, or start your own, that will list your waymark.

It was actually a pretty well done (yet provactive) example of what you can suggest as a waymark category.

9.1k · August 17, 2005

The point is that the new system allows these to be removed from geocaching.com so that the reviewers won't have to enforce a subjective guideline. Instead each category manager will enforce their own subjective guidelines. If you don't like the guideline, you can find another category, or start your own, that will list your waymark.

Fixed your statement; see addition in bold.

Hey, bring on that category. I truly cannot wait to have my waymark denied just because you don't like me. I will start a forum thread and flame you mercilessly. Godwin's Law will be invoked. Turnabout is fair play, and fun, too!

9.1k · August 17, 2005

The point is that the new system allows these to be removed from geocaching.com so that the reviewers won't have to enforce a subjective guideline. Instead each category manager will enforce their own guidelines. If you don't like the guideline, you can find another category, or start your own, that will list your waymark.

It was actually a pretty well done (yet provactive) example of what you can suggest as a waymark category.

So it's OK to say that Geocaching.com Volunteers aren't eligible to submit waymarks in a particular category, even under their personal account? How about "no old people" or "no Native Americans"?

I found the satirical rewrite of the existing virtual cache listing guidelines to be a bit more than provactive (sic). "Offensive" works better for me.

August 17, 2005

Why not run a poll and let the people decide?

The people can still decide even with out a poll. Do what others plan to do...

1) Not visit/use the new site

2) Think twice when it comes time to renew your Premium Membership.

7.2k · August 17, 2005

2) Think twice when it comes time to renew your Premium Membership.

Thanks for reminding me! I'm off to renew.

If I don't, the Charter Member in the family might have my legs broken. Hey, I've got to sleep with her!

18.9k · August 17, 2005

...These are the ones that deserve to be seperated from the pack and be brought back as virts...

The problem is that what is unique and cool and "Wow" to you might not be to me. You think it is worthy of it own category and high standing - I say - big deal there are hundred of them around me.

I am reminded of some years ago proudly showing off my flower bed full of Marigolds to a friend - she responded by asking me why I had allowed so many of those weeds to grow.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The new solution isn't what I thought it would be but it does allow everything we think of as cool to be listed, searched, logged, photograghed and rated.

2.1k · August 17, 2005

Without yet seeing the interface, this will sound like a blind man describing a painting.

If I create a category and decide what is listed there (ala locationless "finds"), but I don't like your "find" (and delete it/remove it), then you can create your own category of the exact same topic?

Then you populate it with every "find" that I (and others) have put into my category, plus your own that I disagreed with. The next person along has to decide to put their new "find" fitting both our topics in one, the other, or both?

Oh, yay. Am I getting this right?

Maybe I'll just wait until I see it, but this sounds like there's either going to be anarchy or a lot of the same arbitrariness that's supposedly avoided by going to this new method.

It'd be nice if even non-premium members could at least read a description (with a small graphic example) of the new site to reduce confusion and things.

It might even entice subscriptions more than this Monty Hall "behind door #2" approach is currently.

August 17, 2005

But that is what Waymarking is..........a data base of Points of Intrest.

Incorrect. Waymarking is a database of points.

Incorrect. Waymarking is a database of points that contain addional related metadata that defines each point.

incorrect. er... okay, correct. actually, yeah, that's correct. but what's the metadata? the mcchicken sandwich for only $1 (plus tax)?

if nothing else, the elimination of webcam caches really bothers me most. there are a couple of cachers in my area who bought webcams specifically for the purpose of having a webcam cache, and i must say that i have had fun at each of them. (one time, i constructed a snowman with a disproportionally large nose to earn the find. oh, and i was in front of the wrong house for some part of my construction. <_< ) i know that they will pull their webcam caches completely if such a transfer to Waymarking occurs.

btw, has anyone else noticed how much of a pitch mcdonalds has gotten in this thread?

9.4k · August 17, 2005

Without yet seeing the interface, this will sound like a blind man describing a painting.

You can now. I gave you a freebie month.

9.4k · August 17, 2005

incorrect. er... okay, correct. actually, yeah, that's correct. but what's the metadata? the mcchicken sandwich for only $1 (plus tax)?

You don't get a month, however.

August 17, 2005

Hey, well we're at it, why not move all non-traditional caches to their own seperate site so that Geocaching is only about the traditional caches... after all, they're the only caches that should really be called caches. Some people don't like micros, and some people don't like multi-caches... lots of people don't like puzzle caches... once we get a seperate site for each of these, everyone will be able to play the game the way he or she likes without buggering up our listings here on Geocaching. I don't know about you, but I sure hate having to scroll past all those other cache types when I'm only looking for regular-sized traditional caches.

<_<

If you noticed the sarcasm in there, I'm sure you can tell that I'm not a proponent of this new "solution." Jeremy - and everyone else who was involved with this - you guys rock, but I absolutely do not think this is a good idea. Nothing personal, of course.

I don't see what's so hard about coming up with guidelines for virtuals. What's wrong with these:

- it must be in scenic location/location of historical significance/culturally significant location

- it must be physically or legally impossible to place a physical cache in said location

Doesn't that pretty much cover things?

I really can't be bothered to visit an entirely seperate site just to find virtual caches. My problem? Yeah, probably, but I think lots of people will agree that it's too bothersome. I think moving all that stuff over to Waymarking is going to make Geocaching much less interesting than it currently is. Finding different cache types is, I think, one of the things that makes the game interesting, even if there aren't always physical caches.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Tidalflame

20.7k · August 17, 2005

I don't know how much I'll use WM.com when I'm not traveling, but I don't see any problem with the separation. If I want to find virts or LCs, I still can, I'll just be logging them on a different page. BFHD.

2.1k · August 18, 2005

Without yet seeing the interface, this will sound like a blind man describing a painting.

You can now. I gave you a freebie month.

Thanks. I'll see what I can break.

August 18, 2005

I think it is really sad that one person or a handfull of people can totally change everyone's hobby because they run the most popular website. Personally, I think virtuals and earthcaches are part of the game and really resent others telling me what the game should be to me. I geocache to go places that I would not go on my own and I know I'm not alone. What better way to do that in a national park besides virtuals? I will not use the new site and I might not renew my membership in objection. I really don't understand why this is being done.

20.7k · August 18, 2005

I don't really understand where you are coming from. I like virts and LCs. In fact, I own one of each. I really don't see this change stopping me from playing the game the way I want to.

Edited August 18, 2005 by sbell111

7.2k · August 18, 2005

Okay...

Why removing virts will be good for the hobby

When virts come about it was in answer to prohibitions placed by some land managers who said absolutely nothing physical can be left behind. That's fine as there were already policy against it. Geocaching fit that policy so it was restrcited. There were also some interesting spots that just wouldn't allow a cache to remain unmolested.

However, there was a severe unintended consequence. Other land managers started pointing to virts as a viable alternative to physical caches even in places where a physical cache would be perfectly fine. The reasons vary but it could be fear of something new, not understanding, fear of terrorists, or whatever. Even where there was no policy otherwise, they were creating it to allow only virts.

They would point to virts as a solution for them because in their eyes a virt is "just as good" as a physical cache.

Part of the reason virts have been clamped down on is in answer to this. There wasn't a complete ban only because some are truly worthy of being listed. If there was no clamp down then geocaching might become nothing but virts.

Now, if we removed completely any listing of any non-physical cache a land owner can't point to them and say they will only allow those type of caches. Of course, they can say they will only allow waymarks, but waymarks aren't caches. They aren't "just as good." Pressure would be on them to allow physical caches.

So, removing all non-physical caches will actually be better for the hobby of geocaching.

We can do this now because there is a viable solution to virts and it's called "waymarks."

Hope this helps.

9.1k · August 18, 2005

I think it is really sad that one person or a handfull of people can totally change everyone's hobby because they run the most popular website. Personally, I think virtuals and earthcaches are part of the game and really resent others telling me what the game should be to me. I geocache to go places that I would not go on my own and I know I'm not alone. What better way to do that in a national park besides virtuals? I will not use the new site and I might not renew my membership in objection. I really don't understand why this is being done.

You'd rather it be the old way, where no new locationless caches have been listed since January 2003, and many of the interesting target spots have already been "taken" so you can't log a find on, say, your local cathedral? Or where a virtual cache had about a 2% chance of getting listed, if you could persuade a volunteer that it had "WOW factor?"

Waymarking takes a broken concept that didn't work well in the structure of geocaching ("hide a container, find a container, write about your find"), and blows it wide-open for expansion.

You can still go visit that same national park, you know. Only there will be 18 different waymarks in it, instead of just one virtual and 17 archived virtuals you never knew about.

Could the reason for your disappointment be that you're missing a smiley face for your find count?

Edited August 18, 2005 by The Leprechauns

August 18, 2005

Hey, well we're at it, why not move all non-traditional caches to their own seperate site so that Geocaching is only about the traditional caches...<snip>... Some people don't like micros, and some people don't like multi-caches...<snip>

A micro cache is a traditional cache. Micro is a definition of size, not type of cache. They still show up as little, green boxes on the map. :blink:

August 18, 2005

I could care less about the icon on my stats. Sure, you can point to a new website and say it is "just as good", but it's not. People won't go to two different sites. Watch. Yes, I can still go to the parks, but finding that one special spot that isn't on any regular map is what I'm after.

9.4k · August 18, 2005

People won't go to two different sites. Watch.

Let's do that. Sounds like a good idea.

August 18, 2005

I recently started geocaching in part due to the variety of types of caches. I liked the idea of being able to find some physcial caches, sign the log, and trade at some caches, go to a virtual I didn't know about and read about the location, take a walking tour with a multi, create funky pictures for a webcam, meet other cachers at an event, and come across a wacky feature for a locationless cache. As you might guess I am also partial to earthcaches, but I am biased there . But I personally despise the puzzles, but that's just me. The idea of pushing all non-traditional caches to another site and apparently making them on par with the corner stop sign is demeaning and elitist.

Yes there are alot of types of caches and if you're interesed in just one type the game should be changed to allow you to only view the type of cache your interested in instead of changing the game for everyone. I don't like the idea of having to go to two different sites to get the same information I already get at one.

This suggestion probably comes a little too late since it appears the dicision has alrady been made. Each user should be allowed to set up preferences for what caches they want to see much like the way the geocaching.com maps allows you to turn off different types of caches. That way those people that want only find traditional caches of a certain size or larger will only see caches that meet that requirement and not even know that the others exist.

And I won't have to see the puzzle caches any more; out of sight, out of mind. :blink:

August 18, 2005

People won't go to two different sites. Watch.

Let's do that. Sounds like a good idea.

It would be cool if there was a linky from one to the other, including from the forums.

From the forums, we can visit Geocaching.com, but not WM.com.

20.7k · August 18, 2005

... People won't go to two different sites. Watch.

I've wondered whether or not I will use the WM.com site much. I think I will, but who knows? I don't see laziness on my part to be a reason not to do it, however.

Yes, I can still go to the parks, but finding that one special spot that isn't on any regular map is what I'm after.

That is exactly what WM.com is going to give you. You'll be able to enter the coords for the park and look up all the waymarks within it. Some are going to be lame, but you'll be able to tell right away and only look at the categories that light your spark.

9.1k · August 18, 2005

People won't go to two different sites. Watch. Yes, I can still go to the parks, but finding that one special spot that isn't on any regular map is what I'm after.

3,000+ Terracachers would beg to differ, and in fact would argue that their site does a better job of capturing that one special spot. The vast majority of the members there are also active on this site. Just because *I* choose not to join there doesn't mean that others won't like it either. And so goes the logic for Waymarking.com, or Minute War, or confluence hunting, etc.

From a logician's perspective, it can be dangerous to take your own views and extrapolate them onto a large group.

EDIT: In case you are wondering how a non-Terracacher would know the membership number, a very good friend of mine has an account there and this allowed the information to be known to me as well. Imagine that! A geocacher can also be a terracacher, and a waymarker.

Edited August 18, 2005 by The Leprechauns

20.7k · August 18, 2005

I recently started geocaching in part due to the variety of types of caches. <variety is good, but you don't like puzzles>. The idea of pushing all non-traditional caches to another site and apparently making them on par with the corner stop sign is demeaning and elitist.

Yes there are alot of types of caches and if you're interesed in just one type the game should be changed to allow you to only view the type of cache your interested in instead of changing the game for everyone. I don't like the idea of having to go to two different sites to get the same information I already get at one.

...

I think that using future PQs, you will be able to sort out exactly what you like from WM.com and GC.com. Once you get the PQs downloaded to you, its trivial to merge them together and dump them to your GPSr and pda.

Were you suggesting that puzzle caches are going to WM.com? I'm not sure how that would work. Are you sure that you are not mistaken?

Sorry that I spindled your post.

August 18, 2005

Sorry that I spindled your post.

You spin quite well

The puzzles just wouldn't come up in any queries I made. They'd be availble for anyone interested in them.

In reading through the posts, I didn't see what would actually happen to events and CITOs. :blink: I only saw restless fuming.

9.4k · August 18, 2005

In reading through the posts, I didn't see what would actually happen to events and CITOs. I only saw restless fuming.

Probably because the answer is "nothing"

August 18, 2005

Of course, they can say they will only allow waymarks, but waymarks aren't caches. They aren't "just as good." Pressure would be on them to allow physical caches.

Let me get this straight... so for geocachers, Waymarking IS good enough because we are being told it won't change things, they are just in a different site. But for land manager, Waymarking is NOT good enough because its not the same thing. I'm getting mixed messages here. But I do agree that land managers will not care about the difference.

20.7k · August 18, 2005

I don't see the mixed message. A land manager pulls up GC.com. Virts aren't allowed. There is no alternative on GC.com that will allow play in that park.

WM.com is not geocaching. They are different activities, different sites.

August 18, 2005

The new system in no way "eliminates" anything. The most drastic form of change that will occur will be some "caches" will now be called something different and be organized on a sister site to GC.com. The organization has the ability to be far superior to any way they could be organized within GC.com and, in fact, the best places to visit will NOT be grouped equal to the ordinary.

If I were to grab a statewide list of virtual caches right now and look at that list, without going through each entry the best info I can see to compare all of those virtuals is its name and how far away from my house it is.

Not much to go on, and not much for me to make an assesment on if it is worth my time. I could just go to the closest one and all I would find is a small marking plaque in the ground at the site of an abandoned uranium mine that is blocked off due to the residual radiation in the location. However, I also know that some of the virtuals in the state reside in the nations first National Park and National Monument. I'm sure many of those would be well worth my time to visit, while a few may be no more interesting (to me) than that plaque outside the uranium mine. I have no way to really tell.

On Waymarking.com there is a rating system in place and an organized directory. I can immediately discount any commercial waymark and only look at the categories/waymarks that other visitors have given high reviews of. This way I can be pretty sure I am getting the MOST out of my time visiting an area.

The actual content of the virtuals would never change in this example. The experience if I visited devils tower as a virtual or as a waymark would be identical. However, when planning my trips, it will be much easier to see that if I were to go on a long drive to catch one virtual, I'd rather go to Devils Tower than to an abandoned uranium mine.

IF you want to SAVE OUR VIRTUALS - then move the virtuals over to Waymarking.com where they will be saved!

24.7k · August 18, 2005

Hey, well we're at it, why not move all non-traditional caches to their own seperate site so that Geocaching is only about the traditional caches... ...

That statement by itself is a political stroke of genius.

Separating geocaching (find a box) from everthing else (no box) with a sharp line makes a strong statement to those who would turn their parks into waymark camps and not allow geocaching.

August 18, 2005

Ah! but then it would press the issue that the park would be required to define what is wrong with geocaching and why it is an unacceptable recreational hobby on public land.

If a park had to make a hardline "no geocaching" policy, there would have to be some very good reasoning behind it. If the reasoning exists, then perhaps the park is correct and geocaching SHOULDN'T be allowed there. If the reasoning does not exist then it actually opens up a more acceptable policy for geocaching.

Keep in mind the reasoning would have to hold up while comparing geocaching with playing football, walking your dog, riding your bike, etc. A botanical park mrobably prohibits people using the flower beds for playing football and it is well within their rights to discourage geocaching as well due to the protection of the flowers. However, an undeveloped open space that allows hunting and fishing probably has no solid ground to discourage geocaching.

Looking at the argument from both sides, for the good of the sport it might actually be better to provide the box/no box distinction.

August 18, 2005

How will travel bugs that have/had goals related to virtuals, webcam, etc be able to meet their goals?

I was thinking of creating a bug to to visit earthcaches. (Yes, I know that bugs can't be dropped of at virtuals, earthcahces, etc, but they could still have their pictures taken at them) Now it doesn't seem like such a good idea since they will be moved off to WM.com and the existing bugs with similar goals will have nothing to do.

August 18, 2005

I can see it now. Move all caches to Waymarking.com.

Category: Ammo can in woods.

Category: Film can in ivy.

Category: Key holder under lamp post skirt.

Category: Film can hanging in tree.

The possibilties are endless.

I change my mind about everything... this is going to be most brilliant move so far!

1.5k · August 18, 2005

How will travel bugs that have/had goals related to virtuals, webcam, etc be able to meet their goals?

I was thinking of creating a bug to to visit earthcaches. (Yes, I know that bugs can't be dropped of at virtuals, earthcahces, etc, but they could still have their pictures taken at them) Now it doesn't seem like such a good idea since they will be moved off to WM.com and the existing bugs with similar goals will have nothing to do.

They can just have their picture taken and a note attached to the bug's page. They just won't be virtually "dropped" any where.

Same goal - visit "this type of location" - then drop me into a cache for someone to pick me up.

9.4k · August 18, 2005

I can see it now. Move all caches to Waymarking.com.

Category: Ammo can in woods.

Category: Film can in ivy.

Category: Key holder under lamp post skirt.

Category: Film can hanging in tree.

The possibilties are endless.

I change my mind about everything... this is going to be most brilliant move so far!

Wow. You're starting to get it now. Gratz.

9.1k · August 18, 2005

How will travel bugs that have/had goals related to virtuals, webcam, etc be able to meet their goals?

I was thinking of creating a bug to to visit earthcaches. (Yes, I know that bugs can't be dropped of at virtuals, earthcahces, etc, but they could still have their pictures taken at them) Now it doesn't seem like such a good idea since they will be moved off to WM.com and the existing bugs with similar goals will have nothing to do.

They can just have their picture taken and a note attached to the bug's page. They just won't be virtually "dropped" any where.

Same goal - visit "this type of location" - then drop me into a cache for someone to pick me up.

There are thousands of bugs out there with goals that don't involve caches. If a bug wants to attend a major league baseball game, odds are high that there won't be an ammo box next to your seat in Section 238, Row W. But I've taken three bugs to baseball games, and then virtually placed them in the cache nearest the stadium to approximate the mileage (it's one of my micros). Then I moved the bugs along towards another city with a baseball team.

So just visit a waymark and then drop it off in a cache. No big deal. In fact, since new virtuals were being listed at a snail's pace, what Waymarking does is open up opportunities for people to locate interesting places that match a bug's goal.

2k · August 19, 2005

WM.com is not geocaching. They are different activities, different sites.

Different activities, different sites, and different hats. Jeremy has to switch hats when working on the two sites. I see him wearing a Tilley hat when working on the geocaching.com website, and more of a bowler when working on the Waymarking site.

August 19, 2005

You know what's really ironic about this statement? You're not being stopped from playing the game your way, your just being advised virts are now on a different location, because just like benchmarks, they don't really represent a cache, just a place. That's why micros are considered a cache. As small as they are, they still fit the definition.

...

Apples and oranges.

I disagree! You are focussing on the "definition" of the word cache. Just a place? How about this... "Just a place that happens to have a beautiful view of Fox Island?" -or- "Just a place that has some really interesting information about migratory birds?"

Not "just a place" but a place that actually has "something". Sure, you can't pick it up, like you can a matchbox car or troll with fluffy hair, but there IS something there. Geocaching takes us places we enjoy. The contents of a cache can be a 'view', 'information' (see your definition where it describes a computer cache), or an experience. The cache itself can be a location. Isn't the inside of an ammo can a location? Of course it is!

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who says the Lincoln Memorial doesn't possess a "WOW" factor.

True, but is it a cache?

Even its name implies that it's not really a cache.

Of course it is! It is a location that contains something of value. Its name implies that it is not a cache? Gimme a break! What does the name have to do with it. Check out the names of these traditional caches:

Granpa's FABER PLACE II

Hairpin

Pickens(1)One

Abandoned

I think that a cache is a location that contains something. The Lincoln Memorial fits that. It is a location. The location contains something. The fact that it is not easy to swap matchbox cars is irrelevant.

7.2k · August 19, 2005

Of course it is! It is a location that contains something of value. Its name implies that it is not a cache? Gimme a break! What does the name have to do with it. Check out the names of these traditional caches:

Granpa's FABER PLACE II

Perhaps if you knew anything about the history of this cache, or it's location, you'd not have used it as an example.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind telling the rest of the group the value of this location? What about FABER PLACE I, or III?

I'm all ears.

August 19, 2005

I would like to go on record asking that virtuals not be removed from being caches. The existing virtuals should be allowed to remain and new ones should be allowed in the future.

The fact that they are counted as a cache give them a value to many that would not be there otherwise. I know the official line is that we should not be concerned about find totals but the reality is for many its very important.

Now I would not be apposed to restricting new virtuals to places where regular caches are prohibited, like national parks. Otherwise we are going to see a lot of two stage multi's where you find a plaque or something in the parks with the actual box just outside.

As an additional note, we just added Earthcaches and find it hard to believe they are going to be eliminated already.

I agree in not so many words :rolleyes:

August 19, 2005

Of course it is! It is a location that contains something of value. Its name implies that it is not a cache? Gimme a break! What does the name have to do with it. Check out the names of these traditional caches:

Granpa's FABER PLACE II

Perhaps if you knew anything about the history of this cache, or it's location, you'd not have used it as an example.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind telling the rest of the group the value of this location? What about FABER PLACE I, or III?

I'm all ears.

You are correct, I know nothing about this cache.

I never suggested that I had knowledge of this cache, nor did I imply that this cache had any value. I did suggest that you cannot judge the cache by its name. It is a name that has nothing to do with caching.

I feel that your response is unfair and you are quoting my text out of context. My lack of knowledge about this particular cache has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to make (and I think that you know it).

The points I was trying to make (somewhat unsuccessfully) are:

- The general definition of a cache can be described as a location that contains 'something'.

In my opinion a location that has a beautiful view or some interesting information fits this

definition.

- Suggesting that the name of a cache has anything to do with the value of that cache

(as you suggested in a previous post) is silly. I only offered those names becacuse

are traditional caches that have names that do not have anything to to with caching.

I don't know anything about these caches beyond their names. Judging them on the

basis of their name alone, makes no sense to me. Certainly there are caches that

have names that do have names that seem to be cache oriented. Names like

"Pete's Cache" or "Ship's Hold" might be considered cache-like names. To say that

the name of a cache implies that it is not a cache just seems silly.

Perhaps you would like to eloborate on your statement that:

"Even its name implies that it's not really a cache."

I would be interested in knowing what relevance you think this has.

Here is the full context of your previous post (that I am referring to):

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who says the Lincoln Memorial doesn't possess a "WOW" factor.

True, but is it a cache?

Even its name implies that it's not really a cache.

18.9k · August 19, 2005

Clearly TPTB have defined Geocaching as hiding an actual physical object at a location and then posting the coordinates online so that others may find it.

This definition has clearly upset some folks. But the new site (game) certainly allows you to do everything you could when virts were called caches and more. Still list it, seek it, photograph it, log it, share it. Now you can even rate it as a bonus!!

Sure it doesn't up the smilely count on gc anymore but it does up the count over there.

You can be both a Geocacher and a Waymarker. Just remember which is which. Geocache=physical object, Waymark=interesting spot with no physical object. The problem with virts has always been that everybody has a different threshold for what is a "WOW" factor. Now we don't worry about - just list it, rate it and see what happens.

8k · August 19, 2005

The points I was trying to make (somewhat unsuccessfully) are:

- The general definition of a cache can be described as a location that contains 'something'.

In my opinion a location that has a beautiful view or some interesting information fits this

definition.

- Suggesting that the name of a cache has anything to do with the value of that cache

(as you suggested in a previous post) is silly. I only offered those names becacuse

are traditional caches that have names that do not have anything to to with caching.

I don't know anything about these caches beyond their names. Judging them on the

basis of their name alone, makes no sense to me. Certainly there are caches that

have names that do have names that seem to be cache oriented. Names like

"Pete's Cache" or "Ship's Hold" might be considered cache-like names. To say that

the name of a cache implies that it is not a cache just seems silly.

Perhaps you would like to eloborate on your statement that:

"Even its name implies that it's not really a cache."

I would be interested in knowing what relevance you think this has.

Point one - the current guidelines for virtuals state that "a view is a view .. a view is not a virtual cache"

Point two - the current guidelines for virtuals state that "Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches". I believe CR's point was that the name alone "Lincoln Memorial" implies that this might not qualify as a virtual under the current guidelines.

Of course the Lincoln Memorial does have a WOW factor. In addition it is large enough that for a virtual cache you might give coordinates that take to a part of the memorial where there may be something really unusual to see that visitors to the memorial normally would not be looking for. I always thought that there should be a guideline for virtuals that there must be something to "find" at the coordinates that a casual visitor to the spot would not normally notice. I've never agreed with the purist that say the word "cache" means there must be a container and log. But I do agree that geocaching should involve "finding" something.

7.2k · August 19, 2005

You are correct, I know nothing about this cache.

If you did, you would know it goes against your theory of "the location is the cache" as the location has very little to do with it's value.

Secondly, virtual means, in part, "Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name." (I made bold the crucial part.) In other words, it's not actually a cache. So, what part of "even its name implies that it's not really a cache" don't you understand?

Oh, and stop trying to confuse "category name" with "cache name." It really doesn't fly.

The creation of "virtual caches" was a stop-gap measure and, IMHO, a mistake. The solution to the problem is now at hand. Though it is still new, it certainly seems to be an elegant solution. It is my firm belief the elimination of "virtual caches" will make the hobby of geocaching stronger.

7.2k · August 19, 2005

I believe CR's point was that the name alone "Lincoln Memorial" implies that this might not qualify as a virtual under the current guidelines.

Ah, I see the failure on my part to effectively communicate my point.

I was refering to the category name of "virtual cache," not the name of the cache itself.

I humbly appologize for any confusion.

Hope this clears things up.

8k · August 19, 2005

So, CR is happy to see virtual caches disappear from geocaching.com because virtual = not real. Similarly, others will be happy to see locationless go away since there isn’t any location to put into your GPSr to go to.

Virtuals and locationless are variations of the game that were added when Jeremy was trying to grow the popularity of geocaching. While these variations are popular, the geocaching.com website wasn’t quite setup to handle these in a good fashion. The Waymarking solution provides a much more flexible way to handle all kinds of geospatial data. It provides the capabilities needed to handle virtuals, locationless, and other variations yet to be proposed. I don’t think we are seeing all of what TPTB have planned for this site.

Had Waymarking come first, someone would have eventually created a category for “Geocaches”, where they would hide a container and post the coordinates as a waymark. I wouldn’t too surprised if at some time in the future, the geocaching.com database gets moved over to Waymarking.com (There would probably still be a geocaching.com site that would let geocachers look just at the geocache categories, but you could go to Waymarking.com and see everything in one place if you wanted to). I suggest, that instead of getting riled up because locationless caches are being moved and no new virtuals will be approved at geocaching.com, you wait and see how these features will be implemented at Waymarking.com.

For those who can't wait and see - :rolleyes: (I just wanted to uses this smiley)

August 19, 2005

not to split hairs or anything but since we like to point to online dictionaries that define things.... cache seems to mean something for storing provisions(A stock of necessary supplies, especially food.) or valuables, it seems that many so-called "actual" caches do not really meet this criteria (McSwag != Value) and many "virtual" caches actually do meet this criteria (Are there really that few people that think knowledge and information is valuable and necessary?)

But that's just my worthless opinion.

Edit to add: anything can be twisted and spun to work any agenda.

Edited August 19, 2005 by mini cacher

Sov

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment