Future Of Virtuals

[+Glory_needs_cache and Runnin Ron]

I am totally bummed about the no virtuals. We actually plan our vacations from virtuals to virtuals. For example we want to go to the Grand Canyon, I pull up the all the virtual along the way and we go from virtual to virtual. Hell... the only caches in some places and perhaps states can only be a virtual! This will eliminate caches totally from National Parks! So much for my goal of caching in every National Park!!

 

What happened? Was there a minority that hated virtuals so they had to ruin it for everyone? That is usually how things work.

 

I hate micros.. Lets get rid of micros... make a web page for every different kind of cache.

 

With the separate web site for virtuals, how do we do queries? Download to gsak? Will the stats be added to our geocaching stats?

 

 

Glory

Williams IN

[+cache_test_dummies]

We actually plan our vacations from virtuals to virtuals.

When the site has been completed, you should be able to plan trips using waymarks in essentially the same way.

 

With the separate web site for virtuals, how do we do queries? Download to gsak?

We have been told that eventually the Waymarking site will support PQs, or a similar query and download capability.

 

Will the stats be added to our geocaching stats?

Do you mean will waymark finds count in your cache find totals? If so, the answer is no.

Edited September 10, 2005 by cache_test_dummies

[+SherwoodForest]

my main problem with the 'supposed' mandatory archiving of all virtuals from the gc.com website (has there ever been an official decision on this, or is it still the extremely vague wording that we find in two places -- one indicating current virtuals will stay geocachers, and one indicating they will be moved to wm.com or archived) is that you would be archiving the virtual caches that cannot be replaced with a physical container and otherwise meet all the other guidelines (in fact to a stricter guideline and higher quality of cache because they have to meet the WOW! factor as well).

 

I have several caches that end at a 'virtual' container because they are in locations where I am not allowed to place a traditional cache (i.e. State Nature Preserves, Park Districts that do not allow geocaches, etc.). One of this caches is questionably lame on the WOW factor and I could see that one getting archived.... But, most of the others are among the most popular of my caches, and they meet the concept of geocache far more than they fit the concept (as it is currently stands) of Waymarking. Therefore, I would hate for the geocaching community to miss out on these Geocaches just because 5 years into the game, people are trying to say they aren't geocaches anymore.... even though they are....

 

Don't think I'm anti-WM. I moved my locationless over, and see wm.com as the perfect solution for the problems that ailed that cache concept... they never were really caches....

 

Unfortunately, the same doesn't hold true for all virtuals.... yes, there are plenty of historical marker or clocktowers on the street or whatever virtual caches that can easily be converted to waymarks.... but then there are others that can't, like my State Nature Preserve caches...

 

so what I'm really saying it please don't forceably archive the extant virtuals on gc.com.... especially not the ones that met the stringent guidelines that were put in place (just not soon enough to save the category, I guess)

[CoyoteRed]

Unfortunately, the same doesn't hold true for all virtuals...

I can't fathom any virt that can't be converted to a waymark. Can you provide one?

[WH]

I can name at least 1 Virt who's owner doesn't want it to become a waymark.

[CoyoteRed]

I can name at least 1 Virt who's owner doesn't want it to become a waymark.

Yeah, that would be helpful.

[Jeremy]

I can name at least 1 Virt who's owner doesn't want it to become a waymark.

"doesn't want it to" and "it can't" are two different things. One is a resistance to change.

[+globalgirl]

"doesn't want it to" and "it can't" are two different things. One is a resistance to change.

Now now J. Just because a virtual cache owner doesn't want their cache to become a waymark doesn't necessarily mean that the owner is resistant to any and all change. As I recall you yourself said - the two systems are completely different, so it likely only means that some folks simply don't care for the differences between the two systems.

 

IOW - "resistant to change" and "doesn't like" are two different things. One is a natural individual choice - no more, no less.

[Jeremy]

You're splitting hairs. I was responding in context to the original comment that a virtual "can't be converted to a waymark". WH twisted it to a user that "doesn't want it converted to a waymark" and so are you.

 

Yeah, I get it. Some people don't like it. Now if you can respond to the challenge of defining a "wow" virtual I'd like to hear it.

[+mini cacher]

Yeah, I get it. Some people don't like it. Now if you can respond to the challenge of defining a "wow" virtual I'd like to hear it.

Anyone else getting tired of hearing this? If it is so hard to define a "wow" virtual then forget about the wow. It was imposed by GS to begin with and when it was hard to define they make us define it. As I stated (somewhere in one of the many threads where people are upset about virtuals going away... maybe this one.), just start making a list of types of things that make a good virtual and things that don't. If someone wants to try to submit a type of item that is not on the good list or the bad list, then it can be discussed by the Reviewers and added to the appropriate list. Don't make the only guideline a vague "WOW" factor. It would not be much different than one reviewer approving a WalMart lamp post micro in one state and another rejecting one in another. But yeah, I get it. Some people just have a hard time taking no for an answer. Some people have a hard time listening to reason. Some people have a hard time with society.

[Pto]

I agree- and thanks

but its pay up or shut up-

oh, You did.....pay up that is .

Edited September 13, 2005 by Pto

[+The Leprechauns]

mini cacher, IMHO you're arguing a moot point, as the test for virtuals disappears in a few short weeks. Anyways, that list got made, and it's right in the guidelines, just one sentence after the one that says a virtual cache should "wow" a finder. Targets that per se won't qualify for "wow factor" include historic markers, monuments, tombstones, signs, statutes, "nice views" and "nice trails." Yet what got submitted, week in and week out? Historic markers, monuments, tombstones, signs, statues, "nice views" and "nice trails." And the submitters of those targets would often then flame the reviewers either privately or here in the forums.

 

So, that system didn't work very well. Virtual cache submissions chewed up as much time as the typical review process for 5 traditional caches or two multicaches.

 

The "wow factor" was just one part of the guidelines, an attempt to define what constituted a "unique" item. Yet another symptom of a broken process. Waymarking is the attempt at a cure. Over there, I'm pleased to be the manager of the Historic Markers category for my state, and I look forward to approving the same markers that were denied in the past when submitted as virtual caches.

Edited September 13, 2005 by The Leprechauns

[+Chris n Maria]

The thing I have never understood with the whole WOW factor argument was why GC introduced quality control for Virts but never bothered with Physicals. I still don't understand why I'm allowed to stick a magnetic micro in an awfull location but I cant create a virt in an interesting location.

 

We are told that with the new site the rating system will allow us to sift the good from the bad. This I see as a good thing. So why move virts to the new site? Why not bring ratings in for caches?

 

Once ratings were introduced for GC.com then it should be easy to filter out bad caches wether they are virts or not.

 

I can't fathom any virt that can't be converted to a waymark.

 

I can't see most of our virts being succesfully moved to Waymarking. The point of most of them is that the location is a surprise, categorising them would mean completly spoil the point of the "Experience". So I still don't understand how these are to fit in on the new site and TPTB don't seem to have explained it anywhere to my knowledge.

[+The Leprechauns]

The thing I have never understood with the whole WOW factor argument was why GC introduced quality control for Virts but never bothered with Physicals.  I still don't understand why I'm allowed to stick a magnetic micro in an awfull location but I cant create a virt in an interesting location.

Because physical caches are the basis of the activity. Call it "affirmative action" for leaking gladware, rusting coffee cans and squirrel-bitten film canisters. Virtuals were discriminated against for a number of reasons. One was the "lame virt" phenomenon. There were entire downtown areas of midsized cities where one could not place a cache because every point of historic interest had been made a virtual cache, blocking the area around it. Another reason was land managers. Park rangers were saying "we don't want hidden containers, but we like these virtual caches; please set up some of those."

 

We are told that with the new site the rating system will allow us to sift the good from the bad.  This I see as a good thing.  So why move virts to the new site?  Why not bring ratings in for caches?

 

Once ratings were introduced for GC.com then it should be easy to filter out bad caches wether they are virts or not.

Perhaps they will be introduced; who knows? The sites share a common codebase and we will hopefully see improvements already present on Waymarking such as the ability to store multiple coordinate locations. Personally I am not in favor of a scoring system style of ratings, but I do like the idea of having "favorite caches" votes, and recognizing the caches that receive "favorite" votes so these can be searched out from among the masses. There's been quite a bit of discussion of this and I look forward to seeing what solution is introduced.

 

I can't see most of our virts being succesfully moved to Waymarking.  The point of most of them is that the location is a surprise,  categorising them would mean completly spoil the point of the "Experience".  So I still don't understand how these are to fit in on the new site and TPTB don't seem to have explained it anywhere to my knowledge.

What's to say that there won't/can't be a "surprise" category or a "mystery adventure" category? "You won't know exactly what you'll be in for with this one, but it will be a fun experience!" See if that can be worked out, or advocate for it as others have done. In the meantime, be content for your fine existing virtuals to stay as they are.

[CoyoteRed]

I can't see most of our virts being succesfully moved to Waymarking. The point of most of them is that the location is a surprise, categorising them would mean completly spoil the point of the "Experience". So I still don't understand how these are to fit in on the new site and TPTB don't seem to have explained it anywhere to my knowledge.

I seem to remember something about a mystery category or some such. That would then accommodate your requirements.

 

About the only downside I can see with Waymarking is infrastructure. TPTB have been battling, successfully, PQ server load. Considering there is no limit to Waymarking in the way of proximity, uniqueness, suitability, or any number of other criteria, I can see the number of waymarks out strip geocaches rather quickly. What's going to happen to server load when these start to be available in PQs? Will the geocaching side suffer because of waymarks? I hope not.

[+ODragon]

So I was watching the Complete Guide to Geocaching DVD not to long ago. Something just hit me that I thought I should post. Will this be discontinued and/or dubbed to say Waymarking where Dave Ulmer, the guy who hid the first cache, says that his favorite types of caches are virtuals?

[+Chris n Maria]

I seem to remember something about a mystery category or some such. That would then accommodate your requirements.

 

It would be nice if TPTB made an anouncment as to where this sort of cache/waypoint would fit in the new scheme of things. as it is a lot of virt owners feel their carefully constructed virts will disapear in amongst a see of Mcdonalds and coffe shops.

 

Considering there is no limit to Waymarking in the way of proximity, uniqueness, suitability, or any number of other criteria, I can see the number of waymarks out strip geocaches rather quickly.

For many that is precisly the problem with the new site. With a cache the idea is that someone is inviting you somewhere they feel is of interest. With Waymarking they seem to be inviting you absolutly anywhere at all - personally I have difficulty seeing the appeal of this. Though I am open minded enough to be prepared to be proved wrong.

 

Chris

[+fizzymagic]

Virtuals were discriminated against for a number of reasons.  One was the "lame virt" phenomenon.  There were entire downtown areas of midsized cities where one could not place a cache because every point of historic interest had been made a virtual cache, blocking the area around it.

I probably shouldn't say anything, but this "justification" for eliminating virtual caches was (and remains) completely bogus.

 

The stated reason for the 0.1 mile rule is to prevent the possible confusion of two caches. It seems obvious to me that nobody is likely to confuse a virtual with a physical cache; thus, the fact that virtual caches "blocked" physical caches was strictly a policy decision on the part of Groundspeak. There was never any physical (or, for that matter, rational) reason for it.

 

So the use of this invented "problem" to discriminate against virtual caches was pretty lame.

[Pto]

^Wow Factor^

[+Chris n Maria]

Virtuals were discriminated against for a number of reasons.  One was the "lame virt" phenomenon.  There were entire downtown areas of midsized cities where one could not place a cache because every point of historic interest had been made a virtual cache, blocking the area around it.

I probably shouldn't say anything, but this "justification" for eliminating virtual caches was (and remains) completely bogus.

 

The stated reason for the 0.1 mile rule is to prevent the possible confusion of two caches. It seems obvious to me that nobody is likely to confuse a virtual with a physical cache; thus, the fact that virtual caches "blocked" physical caches was strictly a policy decision on the part of Groundspeak. There was never any physical (or, for that matter, rational) reason for it.

 

So the use of this invented "problem" to discriminate against virtual caches was pretty lame.

There are 2 virts in central london that are in excactly the same place (to the inch). Noo ne seems to mind....

Edited September 13, 2005 by Chris n Maria

[+The Leprechauns]

Virtuals were discriminated against for a number of reasons.  One was the "lame virt" phenomenon.  There were entire downtown areas of midsized cities where one could not place a cache because every point of historic interest had been made a virtual cache, blocking the area around it.

I probably shouldn't say anything, but this "justification" for eliminating virtual caches was (and remains) completely bogus.

 

The stated reason for the 0.1 mile rule is to prevent the possible confusion of two caches. It seems obvious to me that nobody is likely to confuse a virtual with a physical cache; thus, the fact that virtual caches "blocked" physical caches was strictly a policy decision on the part of Groundspeak. There was never any physical (or, for that matter, rational) reason for it.

 

So the use of this invented "problem" to discriminate against virtual caches was pretty lame.

No, that is *a* stated reason for the cache saturation rule, not *the* stated reason. Another reason is "to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area." You only quoted the part of the sentence that comes after that.

[+fizzymagic]

No, that is *a* stated reason for the cache saturation rule, not *the* stated reason. Another reason is "to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area." You only quoted the part of the sentence that comes after that.

OK, but that is irrelevant to my point that the "problem" of virtuals blocking physical caches was entirely artificial, and that using it as a justification to eliminate virtuals was self-referential.

[+mini cacher]

mini cacher, IMHO you're arguing a moot point, as the test for virtuals disappears in a few short weeks.

Then why does Jeremy keep challenging us to define it? It gives us false hope that he is actually open to discussion of the problem and seeking further suggestions for a solution. Until a statement is made by TPTB that basically says "The decision has been made and there is nothing any of you can do about it", it can be viewed as a topic open for discussion. Maybe we're being challenged to define it so we will go away for a while and think about it and come up with a solution... mean while TPTB get a break from the posts of the upset so they can finalize the plans for the ending of virtuals regardless of what ever definition we come up with. Current guidleiines for virtuals is a few sentances. If they pose that much complexity in reviewing them then maybe they deserve a few more lines of text. Maybe it started out too vague and open to interpretation... but ended up being too restricted and resulted in lots of rejection. Now it is going to be very open to anything that has a set of lon/lat coords... which will probably result in no rejections. Maybe there is something int he middle. Maybe Historical Markers are common... but that doesn't mean they won't be interesting to the passer-by. So open up the guidelines a little. Don't rely so much on the vague WOW factor. Make a list that might be a little longer.... even if that adds a whole other paragraph to the guidelines (or two even... say it ain't so). I'm just throwign out ideas for solutions to a problem that I myself don't have. But at least I'm trying. Can't we meet half way?

 

BTW, I've been to Waymarking.com.... it didn't WOW me.

[+The Leprechauns]

mini cacher, IMHO you're arguing a moot point, as the test for virtuals disappears in a few short weeks.

Then why does Jeremy keep challenging us to define it?

I think it was a rhetorical question.

[+tozainamboku]

About the only downside I can see with Waymarking is infrastructure. TPTB have been battling, successfully, PQ server load. Considering there is no limit to Waymarking in the way of proximity, uniqueness, suitability, or any number of other criteria, I can see the number of waymarks out strip geocaches rather quickly. What's going to happen to server load when these start to be available in PQs? Will the geocaching side suffer because of waymarks? I hope not.

I would hope that when we get PQs for Waymarking, you will be able to filter on category - both by popularity filter and by selecting particular categories you want to see. You should also be able to filter waymarks by ranking and by date recorded. It shouldn't be hard to get the results of PQs down to a managable size. Of course there will be those who will ask for a PQ of all the waymarks in an area just because they can. The 500 waymark limit should prevent the server from getting overworked It may be that waymark PQs will have their own server and be entirely separate from geocaching PQs. If you want to combine geocache and waymark PQs you might have to use an offline tool. I'm pretty certain that it won't be long after waymark PQs are announced that GSAK will support them.

[+SherwoodForest]

Unfortunately, the same doesn't hold true for all virtuals...

I can't fathom any virt that can't be converted to a waymark. Can you provide one?

well, if you wanted to strip the virtual geocache of all the character that made it a geocache, I suppose then every virtual can be deconstructed into a waymark... but by that same token, every traditional cache can be converted into a waymark as well.... so maybe we should force all the traditional geocaches to become waymarks as well....

 

But, if you want to keep the character of some virtuals intact, it's impossible to convert them to waymarks, since waymarks are to deconstructionist to allow for the 'wow' factor that real virtuals had to meet in order to be listed....

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...56-b3ecc15616f2

 

I'm sure CR and the virt haters can find some way to say that this could easily be converted into a waymark, but I still think that in doing so, it completely kills the spirit that made this cache the geocache that it is...

 

so why not just let the virtuals that are on gc.com stay there.... that's what I don't understand...

[+budd-rdc]

I agree that all Virtuals can be moved to Waymarking. It's the classic "software can fix any hardware problems" argument.

 

Here are two Virtuals that may lose their effect if they became Waymarks. It's just my opinion, so your mileage may vary:

 

Stories in the Rocks: Yosemite Valley Geology

A Walk To Remember

 

Multi-stage virtual constructed to a theme like the "Stories in the Rocks" is more suitable as a Geocache than a Waymark, IMHO.

[+tozainamboku]

mini cacher, IMHO you're arguing a moot point, as the test for virtuals disappears in a few short weeks.

Then why does Jeremy keep challenging us to define it?

I think it was a rhetorical question.

Is this why Jeremy wrote that my Wow!!! category is too vague?

[Jeremy]

mini cacher, IMHO you're arguing a moot point, as the test for virtuals disappears in a few short weeks.

Then why does Jeremy keep challenging us to define it?

I think it was a rhetorical question.

Yes. It was a rhetorical question, but also similar to the quest for the location of the fountain of eternal youth. It'd be great to find it but I don't think it actually exists.

[Jeremy]

mini cacher, IMHO you're arguing a moot point, as the test for virtuals disappears in a few short weeks.

Then why does Jeremy keep challenging us to define it?

I think it was a rhetorical question.

Is this why Jeremy wrote that my Wow!!! category is too vague?

Yes. "What I think is wow" is too vague. One of the major requirements of a good waymark category is scope. Since you can't seem to define the scope of the category it is too vague. Yes, I know you could respond in the affirmative "whatever I think is wow" but if you can't communicate what that means than your scope is too vague.

 

A better category to define (and what I believe most of these "wow" virtuals are anyway) is more of a "surprise" category. Others can fit into more general monuments or such categories.

[+The Leprechauns]

Well, if I found out the location of the Fountain of Youth, you can bet that everyone would hear about it here.

[Jeremy]

Well, if I found out the location of the Fountain of Youth, you can bet that everyone would hear about it here.

Heh. I'd donate my bounty points for that waymark

[Pto]

. . . everyone would hear about it here.

 

Here doesnt exist yet for Many people, remember- (insert *Kissing icon here)

[Jeremy]

. . . everyone would hear about it here.

 

Here doesnt exist yet for Many people, remember- (insert *Kissing icon here)

 

Take note - first official use of the signal violin.

[Pto]

Take note first official use of <the bird>

 

(edit: the bird is in exceptionally bad taste. removed)

Edited September 13, 2005 by Jeremy

[+mini cacher]

mini cacher, IMHO you're arguing a moot point, as the test for virtuals disappears in a few short weeks.

Then why does Jeremy keep challenging us to define it?

I think it was a rhetorical question.

Yes. It was a rhetorical question, but also similar to the quest for the location of the fountain of eternal youth. It'd be great to find it but I don't think it actually exists.

Should we view that as the "The decision has been made and there is nothing any of you can do about it" statement I spoke of? Worse than virtuals being killed off is the not knowing if it is really over or not. Up to now I've had hope that there was still something that could be discussed about it. I'm sure you have a perfectly good reason for putting off the final nail. I just can't help but think how much that really sucks! (That last statement was only for those few us that care)

[+mini cacher]

Well, if I found out the location of the Fountain of Youth, you can bet that everyone would hear about it here.

everyone? that's thinking pretty highly of the site.

[+tozainamboku]

Well, if I found out the location of the Fountain of Youth, you can bet that everyone would hear about it here. 

I don't think the Fountain of Youth would fit in that category. I seem to remember that you need to drink from the Fountain of Youth and the category description states

Any and all type of non-drinking type fountain, and not the type of place you purchase refreshment. Indoor or outdoor, fountains with running water. Description will be revised as necessary.

 

It may be better to report the Fountain of Youth here or here or maybe here.

Edited September 13, 2005 by tozainamboku

[Jeremy]

Well, if I found out the location of the Fountain of Youth, you can bet that everyone would hear about it here. 

everyone? that's thinking pretty highly of the site.

If the coordinates were posted to the fountain of youth there, everyone would hear about it there, no?

Edited September 13, 2005 by Jeremy

[Jeremy]

mini cacher, IMHO you're arguing a moot point, as the test for virtuals disappears in a few short weeks.

Then why does Jeremy keep challenging us to define it?

I think it was a rhetorical question.

Yes. It was a rhetorical question, but also similar to the quest for the location of the fountain of eternal youth. It'd be great to find it but I don't think it actually exists.

Should we view that as the "The decision has been made and there is nothing any of you can do about it" statement I spoke of?

No new virtuals will be published to the site when Waymarking is officially launched. Since you have access to the "Read me first" topic in the Waymarking forums I assumed you read that.

 

Worse than virtuals being killed off is the not knowing if it is really over or not.  Up to now I've had hope that there was still something that could be discussed about it.  I'm sure you have a perfectly good reason for putting off the final nail.  I just can't help but think how much that really sucks!  (That last statement was only for those few us that care)

 

The question up in the air is whether or not virtuals will be archived or just left grandfathered on the site. I'm leaning towards the latter.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm sure CR and the virt haters can find some way to say that this could easily be converted into a waymark, but I still think that in doing so, it completely kills the spirit that made this cache the geocache that it is...

Actually, I'm thinking it would translate exactly over to Waymarking without a single change. Granted, I'm not into Waymarking, but from what I've seen there is nothing that would prevent a verbatim migration.

[+Chris n Maria]

The question up in the air is whether or not virtuals will be archived or just left grandfathered on the site. I'm leaning towards the latter.

The question up in the air is whether or not virtuals will be archived or just left grandfathered on the site. I'm leaning towards the latter.

 

Please, please keep leaning towards the latter.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Chris n Maria

[CoyoteRed]

The question up in the air is whether or not virtuals will be archived or just left grandfathered on the site. I'm leaning towards the latter.

While it certainly would be less heartache in the short run, what about confusion down the road with newbies seeing just about the same things split between the two sites?

 

Personally, I think a clean break would be better. One site for physical caches. One for the rest.

[Jeremy]

Oops. I'm leaning towards the former. Sorry for the confusion.

 

And I'm not a virtual cache hater. I just don't think they ever fit within the concept of a "cache." In fact I surf the Waymarking site far more often to see all the neat things posted each day.

[+Chris n Maria]

The question up in the air is whether or not virtuals will be archived or just left grandfathered on the site. I'm leaning towards the latter.

While it certainly would be less heartache in the short run, what about confusion down the road with newbies seeing just about the same things split between the two sites?

 

Personally, I think a clean break would be better. One site for physical caches. One for the rest.

There are plenty of virts over here that are interconnected with physicals and disentagling them would ruin some great cache clusters.

 

Also why not allow newbies a glimpse of our history.

[+mini cacher]

Well, if I found out the location of the Fountain of Youth, you can bet that everyone would hear about it here. 

everyone? that's thinking pretty highly of the site.

If the coordinates were posted to the fountain of youth there, everyone would hear about it there, no?

Everyone? or only those that visit the site... and have their popularity filter set right... and have their location filter turned off. So not everyone. I would probably not hear about it there. I might hear about it somewhere else and be directed to read about it there.

[Pto]

While it certainly would be less heartache in the short run, what about confusion down the road with newbies seeing just about the same things split between the two sites?

 

What if, maybe and could be- Why worry about possible problems? Using a possible conflict in the future doesnt do much to justify it.

 

How about "What if the newby doesnt use or see the other site - has no interest in it?

Well, then they are missing out on a large peice of geocaching history- as it will have been re-written. Sounds like a theme.... "geocaching is (Make it up as we go along)

[Jeremy]

While it certainly would be less heartache in the short run, what about confusion down the road with newbies seeing just about the same things split between the two sites?

 

What if, maybe and could be- Why worry about possible problems? Using a possible conflict in the future doesnt do much to justify it.

Always simple coming from someone who doesn't have to deal with the problems. This is more common than you think.

 

How about "What if the newby doesnt use or see the other site - has no interest in it?

 

Then they didn't know what they missed.

 

Well, then they are missing out on a large peice of geocaching history- as it will have been re-written.

 

Actually the history will remain in the history of geocachers who have logged them. They won't be deleted just removed from search results. There are plenty of links back to archived caches as well and that history remains intact. You do realize we archive listings? The National Archives shows a history doesn't it?

 

Sounds like a theme.... "geocaching is (Make it up as we go along)

 

Now you're starting to get it.

[+mini cacher]

The question up in the air is whether or not virtuals will be archived or just left grandfathered on the site. I'm leaning towards the [edit]former[/edit].

Yes... much like deciding if you were in a motorcycle accident, would you rather be killed or left in a vegitative state. As much as I hate to see the virtuals gone... I'd rather have them killed than left in a vegtiative state. Better chance to get over the "this sucks" factor if they are erased completely rather than seeing the daily reminder of what they used to be and what they have become.

[+budd-rdc]

The question up in the air is whether or not virtuals will be archived or just left grandfathered on the site. I'm leaning towards the latter.

I'll quote selectively to lobby for my self-interest.

 

I prefer that Virtual Caches get grandfathered, not archived. At the same time, you can declare that no new ones will be approved to prevent the vegitative state that mini cacher mentioned.

 

Maybe you can offer a smaller version of the "bribe" that you offered to locationless cache owners. I'm betting that some of the "lame virtual" owners will take the bait and migrate them to Waymarking, while the more "quality virtual" owners will have too much pride of their own efforts and not take the bait.