Sov

[+geodarts]

I don't understand how moving virtuals to a new site might make land managers more likely to approve physical caches. They could point to waymarks as easily as they can to virtuals. The concerns I have heard from landmanagers would not be satisfied even if geocaching.com is limited to finding physical objects.

 

The definition of a cache has always been somewhat flexible and geocaching.com can define that however Jeremy wants. Micros are probably closer to registers than the traditional cache definition; virtuals might be better described as photo ops or reference points; locationless caches create an awareness of what is around you but its hard to call them caches. Yet, all of the existing types of caches have taken me places that I would not have gone otherwise, just as all of them have included things that have made me realize that there was no reason to go there. With that being said, locationless and virtuals have been an important part of my enjoyment of the game for myself and my daughte, and often require the same degree of thought and planning as physical caches.

 

It would be nice if virtuals on Waymarking could be linked to geocaching maps and pqs. It would be nice if locationless/vitual waymarks could be linked to the indivdual account page -- not for an additional icon, but the ability to keep track of everything from one location.

 

I have not joined other caching or letterboxing sites because it seemed like they were additional things to keep track of, particularly when this site has served my needs. I don't know if I will feel the same way about Waymarking, or if Waymarking will throw things open to make it more likely that I will visit other sites as well.

Edited August 19, 2005 by Erickson

[CoyoteRed]

not to split hairs or anything but since we like to point to online dictionaries that define things....

...let's point to the right thing. The way we use "cache" is short for "geocache."

 

But, let's not let monumental failures in logic get in the way of a good debate though.

[+sbell111]

If I may, could anyone who is against the archival of virts and LCs explain to me why they think Waymarking will be less fun.

 

Please, I beg of you, don't mention stats.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't understand how moving virtuals to a new site might make land managers more likely to approve physical caches. They could point to waymarks as easily as they can to virtuals.

Because a waymark is not a geocache. I don't want to waymark a location, I can do that without anyone's permission. I want to place a geocache, a physical box with a log and trinkets. That is not a waymark.

 

Now, if they don't want to allow that, then I'll move on to some place else, but don't try to tell me a waymark is just as good as a geocache. Where's the box? Where's the log? Where's the trinkets?

 

I've already had to explain this to one land manager. He was all eager to allow virts and restrict physicals. I told him flat out that virts aren't nearly as satisfying as a physical cache. They won't get visited as much. Folks won't go out of their way to hunt a virt as much as they will a physical cache. Besides, how do you make a virt out of some spot along a trail. You have to have something unique and identifiable to use as verification.

 

No one can say a virt is a good substitute for a physical.

 

Well, not and know what the heck they are talking about.

[WH]

The only people who are truly upset over the relocating of Virtual and Locatinless Caches to the new Waymarking site are the number chasers. If Jeremy were to link the Waymarking finds into their total geocache find stats, I am confident the complainers would vanish.

[+mini cacher]

My mistake. It was not you earlier in this thread and in other threads that have been pointing to the definition of "cache" to support why a virtual cache is not a cahce. So my previous post is for them and not you. You may disregard it. Let me correct my pointer for you: geocache (All sorts of info listed there. They will need to update it soon I guess.) Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Nice spin.

 

Note to self (and anyone else actually listening)... "geocache" in no way was derived from the age old word "cache". Any similarities is purely by coincidence

 

I'm not a number chaser and I am upset over this. But thanks for the generalization.

 

I think Waymarking will be less fun for the same reason I guess people had problems with virtuals in the first place... lame stuff. I'd like to see nice memorials or interesting artis houses... not to see that there are three Starbuck on the same street corner (with a McD's on the other). It seems there was a problem with people sending hate mail when their "lame" idea for a virtual was rejected. So now we all get punished by moving to a site where it is acceptable to post that same "lame" idea.

[WH]

The new Waymarking site has everything broken down into categories so you can easily pick and choose which ones you do and do not want to visit.

 

If a particular waymark is "lame" to you, don't seek it.

Edited August 19, 2005 by WH

[+The Leprechauns]

Note to self (and anyone else actually listening)... "geocache" in no way was derived from the age old word "cache". Any similarities is purely by coincidence

Interesting. Were you around when the name evolved from "GPS Stash" to "Geocache," or have you done like I did and familiarized myself with the history when I was a newbie?

 

Matt Stum would likely take issue with your assertion.

[+pghlooking]

I disagree about the numbers is the only reason. Personally I like virts since they show me something unique in a field of ordinary. If I were to go to a town and search under waymarks I might come up with 100 statues, much more than I have any interest in visiting on my vacation. Moreso I would have to read each description to find that truely unique one that would interest me. If that one truly unique one remained a virt, it would be seperated and draw attention to it in a way that Waymarking does not. I would want to visit this one and see something other than just another statue. This is how feel about it.

 

But as far as numbers go, who cares. What happened to play it your way. Don't those people have a right to play it that way? I only see praise and not a bad word when the Supernumber gathers reach another milestone. If you don't care about numbers thats great, if you do thats great. I don't think a category should be decided based on something that trivial. Base it on the quailty and worthiness of the actual place/object, at least thats what I am trying to do.

[+tozainamboku]

I think Waymarking will be less fun for the same reason I guess people had problems with virtuals in the first place... lame stuff. I'd like to see nice memorials or interesting artis houses... not to see that there are three Starbuck on the same street corner (with a McD's on the other). It seems there was a problem with people sending hate mail when their "lame" idea for a virtual was rejected. So now we all get punished by moving to a site where it is acceptable to post that same "lame" idea.

Perhaps you didn't see my proposal earlier in this thread. Or you thought that is was only made as a joke.

 

You will not have to find "lame" virtuals or see every Starbucks. There will be one or more categories dedicated to places with WOW factor. It will just be different people deciding what is WOW. Or you could just look for waymarks in the memorials category or the interesting houses category. In addition, waymarkers get to rate the waymarks - so you could filter the list on waymarks that get more than 3 stars.

[WH]

The Waymarking site will count the number of waymarks you find, they just wont automatically add them into the rest of your geocaching finds. If people insist of lumping their Waymarking and geocache stats together, just add them up yourself. This isnt rocket science.

[CoyoteRed]

If that one truly unique one remained a virt, it would be seperated and draw attention to it in a way that Waymarking does not.

But, how do you know that 1 virt was the really good one out of the 100 potential waymarks?

 

Isn't waymarks going to have some sort of rating? Won't you be able to choose the one that others have enjoyed the most? I think I'd rather follow everyone else's recommendations than the one guy who was able to convince a reviewer his statue had "WOW."

[+Renegade Knight]

The common thread of all present caches is the completion of some small quest to claim victory.

 

I can see that at least the first level waymarks do that. There is a challenge to finding an unclaimed CCC Project location. Do subsequent visits to already found spots have that element of the quest?

[+Renegade Knight]

The only people who are truly upset over the relocating of Virtual and Locatinless Caches to the new Waymarking site are the number chasers. If Jeremy were to link the Waymarking finds into their total geocache find stats, I am confident the complainers would vanish.

Unless I'm missing something waymarks would be better suited to the numbers whores...er chasers.

 

The only common thread I can find is that those who didn't like virtuals before like Waymarking (though I doubt they are going to do much of it), and those who did like virtuals before, still like virtuals.

[+mini cacher]

If a particular waymark is "lame" to you, don't seek it.

If a particular virtual was "lame" to you, you didn't have to seek it either.

 

The only history lesson I took on geocaching was from reading a great deal of info provided on gc.com as well as most of a book which I can no longer find and don't recall the name of. I thought that was enough. I am learning more every day. It seemed to me at the time that geocache was in some way playing on the idea of the "cache" from back in the day. It seemed that most of the descriptions and various opinions supported that thought. I guess I was wrong. However, "stash" does not lead me to a much different idea. But that I guess is my error in judgement (much like trying to debate with a brick wall). I guess I should also not assume any relationship between Waymarking.com and the process of "way marking" that makes use of physical painted markers along trails.

[WH]

If a particular virtual was "lame" to you, you didn't have to seek it either.

 

If a virutal was a good one, it will still be good whether listed here or on Waymarking.com. Lame ones will be lame here or there too.

 

The good thing about Waymarking is that its easier to tell what kind of waymark it is before you seek. People will be able to differentiate between virtuals (waymarks) they want to seek and those they don't alot easier now.

 

The virtuals aren't going away. All the roadside markers, monuments points of interest and other areas that we've all come to like when listed on GC will still exist. You will still be able to seek them all and gets a waymark find to boot.

 

Maybe I'm thick but I don't see the problem.

[+Team Shaeffer]

I think I would dislike the idea a lot less if there was some way of mapping both caches and way things on one map. When I go to a new park, I try and see what caches are around (virtual or regular) and make a list. With the new system it will be twice as difficult - and I admit I'm lazy. I don't really care if I have stats on two sites and stuff like that - I just want to minimize time preparing and maximize time outside.

[+mini cacher]

If a particular virtual was "lame" to you, you didn't have to seek it either.

 

If a virutal was a good one, it will still be good whether listed here or on Waymarking.com. Lame ones will be lame here or there too.

 

The good thing about Waymarking is that its easier to tell what kind of waymark it is before you seek. People will be able to differentiate between virtuals (waymarks) they want to seek and those they don't alot easier now.

 

The virtuals aren't going away. All the roadside markers, monuments points of interest and other areas that we've all come to like when listed on GC will still exist. You will still be able to seek them all and gets a waymark find to boot.

 

Maybe I'm thick but I don't see the problem.

Maybe I'm thick too. If the virtual is the same here as there and there as here... we've solved nothing with a new site but now it makes a lot of people go to a second site to get them.

 

Keep in mind now, that I never saw the virtuals as a problem that needed a solution. I will go along with the idea that they were a problem based on some other's sumary of why it was a problem. It seems this problem will still exist in the new site.

[+The Petoskey Stones]

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.

 

I would like to point out that your implication that I wrote "the location is the cache" is completely false. Once again, you have mis-quoted me. Quotation marks are used to quote something that is said or written by someone. Your use of them here to promote the impression that I wrote or said this, is quite troubling.

 

Sure the rules for virtuals may say that a 'view' does not count as a cache (as someone else pointed out). I was not expressing my understanding of the rules. I was expressing "my opinion" about the potential value of these cache variants. If you check back at my posting you will see that I actually did use the words "my opinion".

 

As for what else I did say about this, here is an actual quote from my post:

...

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. 

...

 

Not "just a place" but a place that actually has "something".

 

Sounds kind of different from what you suggested I said, huh?

 

More opinion:

- Don't like locationless caches? Okay, don't look at them. It's not like they are in your face.

- Don't like virtuals? Don't include them in your pocket queries.

- Don't like WebCams? Don't include them in you pocket queries.

- Don't like micros? Filter them out.

- These variants have been popular.

 

It's easy for folks to avoid the things they don't care for. For those of us who have enjoyed them, they will either no longer exist, or they will be more difficult to access.

 

I respect your right to disagree.

I don't care much for having my words twisted.

GC.com can do whatever they want to (obviously).

I was, and am, just expressing my opinion.

[WH]

I too did not see virtuals as a problem but Jeremy has made it very clear that a geocache is a container hidden somewhere with a logbook to sign in on. Rather than eliminating virtuals and locationles caches all together, he simply created a new website for them. Now we have goecaches that are a hidden container and waymarks which are just a location.

[+sbell111]

...The only common thread I can find is that those who didn't like virtuals before like Waymarking (though I doubt they are going to do much of it), and those who did like virtuals before, still like virtuals.

<In the back of the crowd, waving arms and jumping up and down>

 

I liked virts and LCs and I think I'll get the same enjoyment from WM.com.

[+sbell111]

I think I would dislike the idea a lot less if there was some way of mapping both caches and way things on one map. ...

I'll do it the same way as I currently do. I'll order PQs, use GSAK to make them into one big PQ, and map them using MapPoint. I really don't see how separating them out will affect how I play the game at all.

[+sbell111]

Maybe I'm thick too. If the virtual is the same here as there and there as here... we've solved nothing with a new site but now it makes a lot of people go to a second site to get them....

The solution works in three ways. For ease of understanding, I'll use the term LCs instead of waymark categories and the terms virt or 'found LC' instead of waymarks.

 

First, those people who always whined that virts were mucking up their 'nearest' list will find relief.

 

Second, since waymarks are all broken out by categories, you don't have to bother with virts that you think are lame.

 

Third, if you're like me and can't beat JoGPS at logging the nearby LC item, you still will be able to log your find of the item. Further, I will have more of an incentive to go look at those cool LC items that have already been found (OK, they're waymarks, now, but same diff).

 

Fourth, I'll have an easier time getting the coords of these found LC items into my GPSr.

[CoyoteRed]

Not "just a place"  but a place that actually has "something".

 

Sounds kind of different from what you suggested I said, huh?

Yeah, and you went on to say that inside an ammo box is a location. Riiiight....

 

The core of geocaching is not about the location itself. The core of geocaching is a physical box with a logbook, optionally trinkets for trading, and its location described with GPS coordinates. The rest is secondary. Where that location is, is what makes the cache a pleasure to visit amoung other things. But the location itself is not a cache. The FAQs bear this out. You might want read it. Here, I'll post a link for you.

 

BTW, if you don't like the way I post, I suggest you skip it.

Edited August 19, 2005 by CoyoteRed

[+The Leprechauns]

Fifth, you don't have to convince a Groundspeak volunteer that your particular statue has enough "wow factor" to qualify as a virtual cache. Instead, you're dealing with a waymark category owner who has a special interest in statues and loves to see examples of them.

 

Sixth, you don't need to worry about your waymark being 400 feet away from stage 13 of an 18 stage multicache. Or 50 feet away from a micro. Or 100 feet away from a different waymark.

 

Seventh, instead of writing up a three-line locationless cache log, you get a whole waymark page with the ability to use html and so forth.

[+mini cacher]

Jeremy has made it very clear that a geocache is a container hidden somewhere with a logbook to sign in on.

I have come to the conclusion that this pretty much sums it up. All the rest of the chatter from all sides of the arguement (there were many sides) become invisible at that point. I'm ok with that if everyone else is. We will just have to agree that we stand on different sides of the fence. I just happen to be standing the side where all the crap got dumped... forgive me for thinking it stinks. With great regret, I will have to admit that I have been beaten into submission. Rejoice in breaking the will of another. I will simply add this to the list of things that was once good and is no longer. I will no longer care about anything that anyone says about the topic. I no longer wish to reason with the unreasonable. I'll go play by myself in the corner. I will continue to find the caches.. er I mean GEOcaches that I can (and am allowed to) find on this site. I will continue to have fun. I will continue to go outside. I will continue to pay the very small amount for the luxary of using the extra featrues of the site. I will continue to look for where I can buy the special gravity suit that some members seem to have that allows them to make everything revolve around them.

 

Hugs and Kisses.

[+Team Neos]

The only people who are truly upset over the relocating of Virtual and Locatinless Caches to the new Waymarking site are the number chasers. If Jeremy were to link the Waymarking finds into their total geocache find stats, I am confident the complainers would vanish.

I'm not sure that the only people who are concerned are number chasers, but I can see where folks would like to have all of their finds on one page. The way it is now, I can see my geocache finds and my benchmark finds on the same page--although the benchmarks are not included in the geocache totals.

 

I wonder if some people would be more satisfied if the Waymarking totals showed up on that page also. They would not have to be added to the geocaches found total. I would be more satisfied--I would feel less like my earthcache was the product of a broken home that had recently become the step-child of geocaching.

 

It might even be interesting to have a section for total "everythings" found (geocaches +benchmarks + waymarks). Would that be a database communication nightmare?

[+deimos444]

I intend to reserve my opinion until I have enough information to make an intelligent decision on whether I like this or not.

[Pto]

^Me to.

 

Once the new site is opened up for the general public to ge ta look at, I might

give it a look.

Until then, I can read up on what others are expressing. I agree with alot of whats been said- but I wont land on either side until Ive seen it firsthand.

 

Its just another "adjustment" to suit the needs of TPTB - -

take it, or leave it IM thinking is the process here .

[+tozainamboku]

I am now conviced that this controversy is about numbers

 

Cacher 1 likes finding locationless and virtuals and having these show in their find counts. This cacher feels screwed. Waymarking is a lousy solution.

 

Cacher 2 doesn't like locationless and virtuals. These are not real caches and should never have been counted. Waymarking is great. All these non-caches won't be counted. Geocaching will be pure. (It would be better if everyone's numbers were adjusted though.)

 

Cacher 3 realizes that numbers never mattered in the first place. This cacher knows that different people enjoy different things. Waymarking solves problems with locationless and virtuals. Volunteer cache approvers won't be spending their time dealing with these caches. There will be new variations on Waymarking.com. There will be lots of statistics on Waymarking.com. You will be able to compare numbers there; Jeremy promises there will be competitive games over there. You can find geocaches, you can discover and report new waymarks in different categories, you can visit waymarks that others discovered. You'll be able to filter and sort on all kinds of criteria to look for just what you want to look for. Its an exciting time for GPS based games.

[+Hoppingcrow]

I'd be willing to sacrifice the 11 locationlesses/virtuals I have in my total count (12 if you include an Earthcache). Sure, they were fun to do, but were they "geocaches" in the sense that I mean when I say "geocache?" Nope. In fact, I was surprised when the one benchmark I've found DIDN'T count, because to be consistent with the trend of counting locationlesses and virtuals, it seemed like it should.

 

If they ever do decide to lower our totals by the number of non-container caches we've logged, I won't cry (at least not inconsolably, or for very long).

[+The Petoskey Stones]

Not "just a place"  but a place that actually has "something".

 

Sounds kind of different from what you suggested I said, huh?

Yeah, and you went on to say that inside an ammo box is a location. Riiiight....

So rather than address the fact that you have mis-quoted me twice, you decide to ridicule me.

 

The core of geocaching is not about the location itself.  The core of geocaching is a physical box with a logbook, optionally trinkets for trading, and its location described with GPS coordinates.  The rest is secondary.  Where that location is, is what makes the cache a pleasure to visit amoung other things.  But the location itself is not a cache.  The FAQs bear this out.  You might want read it.  Here, I'll post a link for you.

Okay, I took a look at the FAQ that you posted the link for. Here is a quote directly from the FAQ:

 

"Virtual Caches

 

A virtual cache is a cache that exists in a form of a permanent object at a location that was already there. Typically, the cache “hider” creates a virtual cache at a location where physical caches are not permitted. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit. "

 

Yes, I understand that this is changing. As I said in my previous post, GC will do as they like, and I accept that. I am just expressing my opinion.

 

BTW, if you don't like the way I post, I suggest you skip it.

 

Now this is good advice!

I am travelling, and will have limited or non-existant Internet access for the next few days, so I don't plan to be posting to this thread anymore.

[+tls11823]

For the record, I'm opposed to the change and I'm not a numbers chaser. If it were about numbers, I wouldn't be filtering out micros, which would quickly increase my cache count. (Please be aware that this isn't an indictment of micros or their worthiness - they're just something I choose not to chase.)

 

I'll try to remain optimistic that the new site will have something similar to Pocket Queries, and that I'll be able to use GSAK or something similar to filter out what I don't want to find. However, it seems like the number of categories will be immense and constantly changing. I'm not sure how I'll be able to know what not to download. I'll need to know what all the categories are so I know what does and does not interest me. When the new site really catches on, there will likely be thousands of "interesting" things in many areas. If a PQ is limited to 500 entries, the radius will be quite small unless we can effectively filter things.

 

Or are we saying that the only way to navigate Waymarking will be to go online and "explore"? I often download PQs and explore their output on the plane travelling to the city I'm visiting. Clearly I'm not online at that time. When I'm in hotel rooms, I am often in a mode where online time is costly, so there isn't much opportunity to explore there either.

[+Hynr]

While the new site is cute and and glitzy, it is basically a garbage dump unless some level of quality is imposed. The fact that it deviates from the basic tenents of the geocaching.com site and accepts virtually anything (as evidenced by the McDonalds line) means that many of us won’t bother with it. If you have an autorouting gps with the proper mapset then you already have a complete listing of all restaurants and other commercial sites as well as parks etc. Why would I go to Waymarking.com for that? Many folks who just geocache near their home already have the yellow pages to scan for much of the stuff they are going to find at the new site. The new site needs to distinguishes itself from this paradigm.

 

Earlier in this thread someone suggested that folks with high numbers are the only ones who are ticked off. I doubt that that is true, but if it is, then I would advise Jeremy to watch very carefully how he deals with the folks that feed him. These high-numbers folks are virtually all premium members.

 

I would also caution that the vast majority of virtuals have a greater interest factor than the vast majority of traditional caches (mostly plastic not-even-tupperware containers filled with cheap swag, or previously-discarded 35-film canisters with some folded-up paper, etc). Removing the virtuals from geocaching will have a negative effect, not a positive one, and as such will cost you, Jeremy, money. I guess making payroll is not a problem for you.

[CoyoteRed]

...unless some level of quality is imposed.

It's my thinking the level of quality will be determined by the consumer, us, and filtered on by us. When finders log they have the option of leaving a rating. You then can filter on that rating to get only the cream of the crop. The junk will fall away into oblivion.

[+Chris n Maria]

No one can say a virt is a good substitute for a physical.

Well, not and know what the heck they are talking about.

I can...and do...

 

As far as I can see the "virtual problem" was only really a US phenomina. In the UK most of the virtuals I have visited have been much better than the nearby physicals.

 

If waypoint rating is so great and helps us eliminate pointless waypoints - why not just introduce it on GC.com and leave the virts and locationless there?

[+caderoux]

No one can say a virt is a good substitute for a physical.

Well, not and know what the heck they are talking about.

I can...and do...

 

As far as I can see the "virtual problem" was only really a US phenomina. In the UK most of the virtuals I have visited have been much better than the nearby physicals.

 

If waypoint rating is so great and helps us eliminate pointless waypoints - why not just introduce it on GC.com and leave the virts and locationless there?

There's more to Waymarking than just the rating system. (I'm not sure the rating system IS going to work on WM.com. Remember TPTB here claimed a rating system would never work on gc.com because all caches would end up tending to the average - I'm not sure what won them over).

 

Regardless of whether you think virtuals and locationlesses should have been opened up from the unusable guidelines on gc.com to every burger chain and lamppost, Waymarking's style would still be a better way to handle the virts and locationless in a more tightly-controlled quality-oriented environment.

 

Because there are now three levels (categories, waymarks, visits), it opens up locationlesses which were hard to participate in (FTF gets the waymark, STF gets a visit) and also helps the owners to ensure that people comply with the guidelines.

 

It also categorizes the locationlesses so they are easier to hunt if that's your thing.

 

And waymarks which are closer to the virtual cache-style also get categorized, so you can do just the kinds of virtuals which interest you.

 

The fact that account management is split accross the two sites, will, I hope be rectified.

[+Runaround]

As far as I can see the "virtual problem" was only really a US phenomina. In the UK most of the virtuals I have visited have been much better than the nearby physicals.

I would disagree. I've done virts on 3 continents in at least 5 countries and would say it was pretty much a universal problem although I've yet to cache in the UK. Maybe it's a "everywhere but the UK" problem.

[+TeamAO]

Virtuals are just an excuse to not make an interesting cache.

 

I've found a few virtuals, but I really think that an actual cache in the location would give me more satisfaction than emailing the color of a building to the owner.

 

Waymarking make the separation of caches and cache-less caches.

[+caderoux]

Virtuals are just an excuse to not make an interesting cache.

In the eye of th beholder, maybe, but Waymarking is going to neatly solve all those problems with the subjective Wow factor by opening it up completely.

[+Team Neos]

...unless some level of quality is imposed.

It's my thinking the level of quality will be determined by the consumer, us, and filtered on by us. When finders log they have the option of leaving a rating. You then can filter on that rating to get only the cream of the crop. The junk will fall away into oblivion.

Will the junk fall away into oblivion? Or will the new and seldom visited waymarks have artificially higher ratings?

 

Statistics are more accurate as the numbers increase.

 

One waymark gets 4 visits. Three people like it, one person doesn't like it. It gets a 75% approval rate.

 

Another waymark gets 100 visits. 75 people love it, 25 people do not. It gets a 75% approval rate.

 

The next three visitors to the first site all love it--it goes to 7/8 approvals or 88%.

Of the next 30 visitors to the second waymark 1/2 despise it, the rating slips to 69%.

 

Which waymark has the most significant rating? One has a grand total of 7 people who liked it, the other still has 90 people who liked it and yet the one with the smaller number of visitors has a much higher rating.

Edited August 20, 2005 by Team Neos

[+Miragee]

Virtuals are just an excuse to not make an interesting cache.

 

I've found a few virtuals, but I really think that an actual cache in the location would give me more satisfaction than emailing the color of a building to the owner.

 

Waymarking make the separation of caches and cache-less caches.

I've learned much more from the Virtual "caches" I have found versus trying to find a micro located on the wrong side of the trolley tracks.

 

In most cases there was no way a physical cache could have been placed at the location of the Virtual. Where would you place a cache at the Manzanar Internment Camp?

 

One virtual where I really learned a lot by meeting the requirements was SD Historical.

 

I'm sorry Virtuals won't be a part of GC.com in the future . . .

[+LaPaglia]

Virtuals are just an excuse to not make an interesting cache.

 

I've found a few virtuals, but I really think that an actual cache in the location would give me more satisfaction than emailing the color of a building to the owner.

 

Waymarking make the separation of caches and cache-less caches.

I've learned much more from the Virtual "caches" I have found versus trying to find a micro located on the wrong side of the trolley tracks.

 

In most cases there was no way a physical cache could have been placed at the location of the Virtual. Where would you place a cache at the Manzanar Internment Camp?

 

One virtual where I really learned a lot by meeting the requirements was SD Historical.

 

I'm sorry Virtuals won't be a part of GC.com in the future . . .

Honest question. Are you sorry they wont be here because you don't get a smiley for the find? Yes is an acceptable answer.

 

They appear to be even better as Waymarks. Certainly a lot more of them. No more fighting to get them approved.

[+Miragee]

Honestly I don't know how much searching I'll be doing on the other site. There are more than 4,000 caches in a 100-mile radius of my house . . . and I have a slow dialup Internet connection.

 

However, I already own a Waymark. The location of which I found while searching for a "real," not a Virtual cache.

[+LaPaglia]

Honestly I don't know how much searching I'll be doing on the other site. There are more than 4,000 caches in a 100-mile radius of my house . . . and I have a slow dialup Internet connection.

 

However, I already own a Waymark. The location of which I found while searching for a "real," not a Virtual cache.

Well, sounds like you have enough to keep you busy for a while

[CoyoteRed]

Will the junk fall away into oblivion? Or will the new and seldom visited waymarks have artificially higher ratings?

And just think, even if the waymark had a 90% approval rating, there is no gaurantee that you will like it!

 

Whoa! When you take that into consideration a few points one way or the other is not going to matter.

 

Let's not try to over-think the rating. You can look at them and pretty guess one with a very low approval rating will most likely suck while one with a high approval rating will most likely be worth while to visit. Still, people are different, so like I said, there is no guarantees any one person will like or dislike a cache.

 

It's the same thing with the difficulty ratings. Folks try to split hairs about what's a 3 versus a 3 and a half. Who cares? People are different so they'll perceive the difficulty different. If you look at the ratings to get a "feel" of how hard it's going to be instead of thinking, "I should only be on-site searching for 45 minutes, If I don't find it, it must be missing. If I find it sooner the rating is to high" then you'll be much better off.

 

It's not about guarantees or splitting hairs, it's about getting a feeling about if you'll like it or not. Nothing more.

[Hugh Jazz]

[+webscouter.]

I'm offended by the popcorn smilie

[Hugh Jazz]

I'm offended by the popcorn smilie

No one had posted it yet, I thought I'd try it out. I meant it in a humourous, non-offensive way.

[+deimos444]

I'm offended by the popcorn smilie

No one had posted it yet, I thought I'd try it out. I meant it in a humourous, non-offensive way.

I'm offended by people being offended.