Future Of Virtuals

[medoug]

From what I understand about Waymarking, it sounds like it will be a good replacement for locationless caches , but not so good for virtual caches .

 

Usually virtual caches are a location that has something uniquely special about it which would probably get lost if it is listed as a simple waymark. For example, the first McDonalds restaurant (in original restored decor/condition) might be interesting whereas just any McDonalds would not be. Another more common example would be cemetaries. An ordinary cemetary would typically attract little interest, yet a historic cemetary, a hidden cementary, or a cemetary with a unique grave marker or important person buried there might be of interest to many people. I think it would be hard to sort out which cemetaries have something unique to them despite a ranking system.

 

Also, sometimes the location itself isn't as unique as the story that goes along with the location. Many times places of significant interest do not have a marker revealing the story or some of the interesting details behind the story. It was mentioned that a "short" description could be included with the coordinates in Waymarking. Will the description be limited to a certain length which might not allow telling the complete story?

 

I am quite disappointed in the elimination of virtual caches from the geocaching website. I, myself, have considered several locations which are special enough to merit placing a regular geocache, yet are situated such that it is not practical for even a micro container. Conditions such as excessive muggle traffic, meticulous landscape caretaking, lacking attachment points or hiding places, respect for the location, and, of course, regulations and permissions can make a location impossible to properly place a physical cache.

 

Well, for now, that's my initial opinion. We'll see. Maybe it'll turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread.....but I'm not holding my breath.

 

medoug.

[+tozainamboku]

I would suggest my Wow!!! category again but Jeremy has shot it down by saying that any version of Wow that is left up to someone's individual judgment is too vague. I think this is a reflection of the Internet generation who say "Just put all the information in front of me and let me make my own decision". Us older folk remember when we relied on experts to collect and select the information for us. The experts/critics/editors or whatever they are called certainly weren't always right. The ones that were right most of the time would get a reputation for being right most of the time. The ones that were wrong would get ignored.

I really think that there should be several categories that are collections of waymarks that would have made good virtual caches. The different category managers would have different ways of creating their categories. I was going to emulate the geocaching volunteer approver approach and reject everything that I didn't think was unique enough to merit a cache. But I can see other approaches. Someone could scour Waymarking.com to see waymarks in other categories that look particularly interesting and invite these to be listed in their category as well. Another approach would be to accept any waymark submitted (maybe requiring that visits be verifiable someway) and have visitors rate the wowness of the waymark. If after 10 or so visits, if the average wowness is less than 3.5, the waymark would be archived. After a while people who liked virtuals would be able to get the same experience by selecting waymarks in whichever of these categories they found to work best for them. I fully understand that anyone that manages one of these virtual cache categories will have a lot of people get mad at them because their waymark was not accepted. Waymarking provides at least some outlet in that many of these waymarks could still be accepted in other categories. And The Leprechauns' experience with Landlocked Lighthouses has already shown that someone will get mad at you for managing any category.

[+SherwoodForest]

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.

yay! the first good news I've heard regarding this in a long time... that's all I am looking for... i have no problem with new virtuals only being accepted as waymarks, I just want the current gc.com virtuals to stay on gc.com...

 

[+cache_test_dummies]

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.

yay! the first good news I've heard regarding this in a long time... that's all I am looking for... i have no problem with new virtuals only being accepted as waymarks, I just want the current gc.com virtuals to stay on gc.com...

You missed Jeremy's post a bit further down:

 

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.

[+The Leprechauns]

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.

yay! the first good news I've heard regarding this in a long time... that's all I am looking for... i have no problem with new virtuals only being accepted as waymarks, I just want the current gc.com virtuals to stay on gc.com...

 

Oops, your rejoicing is premature. Jeremy corrected himself with his follow-up post.

 

If all virtual caches will eventually be archived, then the issue of how to handle "special" virtual caches -- like your "nice tour of the nature preserve that doesn't allow geocaches" or "here's all the cool spots in this park that doesn't allow geocaches" -- needs to be addressed through the waymark category design process.

[+ODragon]

If all virtual caches will eventually be archived, then the issue of how to handle "special" virtual caches -- like your "nice tour of the nature preserve that doesn't allow geocaches" or "here's all the cool spots in this park that doesn't allow geocaches" -- needs to be addressed through the waymark category design process.

He did post the answer elsewhere...

 

They will remain cacheless. Actually many reviewers have found out that parks are refusing caches merely for the fact that virtuals can be there instead. This "well you do have the option to use virtuals" has been a standard response by some park managers and perhaps a cacheless park is the best way to energize the local geocachers to change policy.

[+mini cacher]

I guess we better hope that these park managers don't catch wind of this new Waymarking thing. Try to explain to them that while Waymarking is the same for us geocachers with regard to virtuals... its not the same for them.

 

geocacher: Please mister park manager.. may I place an ammo can cache here?

park manager: No. Place a virtual.

geocacher: Oh but they took those away from us... they replaced that feature with Waymarking.

park manager: OK then... place a waymark.

geocacher: Oh but they are not the same.. well they are but they aren't. You see, they were meant to replace virtuals but they are not virtuals... they are not caches at all. They are coords to points of interest. But we are suppose to hunt them the same way we would a virtual... but they are not virtuals. We can't tell the difference but you should be able to.

park manager: Leave me!

[Jeremy]

I guess we better hope that these park managers don't catch wind of this new Waymarking thing.  Try to explain to them that while Waymarking is the same for us geocachers with regard to virtuals... its not the same for them.

 

geocacher: Please mister park manager.. may I place an ammo can cache here?

park manager: No.  Place a virtual.

geocacher: Oh but they took those away from us... they replaced that feature with Waymarking.

park manager: OK then... place a waymark.

geocacher: Oh but they are not the same.. well they are but they aren't.  You see, they were meant to replace virtuals but they are not virtuals... they are not caches at all.  They are coords to points of interest.  But we are suppose to hunt them the same way we would a virtual... but they are not virtuals.  We can't tell the difference but you should be able to.

park manager:  Leave me!

You do a good debate here but your scenario doesn't seem to reflect that. Is this scenario you and a park manager or is it a really poor debater and a park ranger?

Edited September 14, 2005 by Jeremy

[+The Leprechauns]

If all virtual caches will eventually be archived, then the issue of how to handle "special" virtual caches -- like your "nice tour of the nature preserve that doesn't allow geocaches" or "here's all the cool spots in this park that doesn't allow geocaches" -- needs to be addressed through the waymark category design process.

He did post the answer elsewhere...

 

They will remain cacheless. Actually many reviewers have found out that parks are refusing caches merely for the fact that virtuals can be there instead. This "well you do have the option to use virtuals" has been a standard response by some park managers and perhaps a cacheless park is the best way to energize the local geocachers to change policy.

I'm well aware of that post, and as a cache reviewer I have witnessed firsthand the issue which Jeremy describes there. But that post doesn't answer my question. Sherwood Forest has some excellent EXISTING virtual caches that don't fit the mold of a "fountains" or "statues" category. Where shall he put them? They aren't necessarily a "surprise" which is a Waymarking category already being discussed for the type of virtual cache where the creator doesn't want to give away the answer.

[+tozainamboku]

If all virtual caches will eventually be archived, then the issue of how to handle "special" virtual caches -- like your "nice tour of the nature preserve that doesn't allow geocaches" or "here's all the cool spots in this park that doesn't allow geocaches" -- needs to be addressed through the waymark category design process.

He did post the answer elsewhere...

 

They will remain cacheless. Actually many reviewers have found out that parks are refusing caches merely for the fact that virtuals can be there instead. This "well you do have the option to use virtuals" has been a standard response by some park managers and perhaps a cacheless park is the best way to energize the local geocachers to change policy.

I'm well aware of that post, and as a cache reviewer I have witnessed firsthand the issue which Jeremy describes there. But that post doesn't answer my question. Sherwood Forest has some excellent EXISTING virtual caches that don't fit the mold of a "fountains" or "statues" category. Where shall he put them? They aren't necessarily a "surprise" which is a Waymarking category already being discussed for the type of virtual cache where the creator doesn't want to give away the answer.

I could see a category of self guided tours. The waymark would be the starting point of the tour and additional waypoints would be included in the description. In fact, this could tie in to the capability some have asked for of being able to attach additional coordinates to a cache listing (either for a similar purpose or simple to give parking coordinates for a cache).

[+The Leprechauns]

I guess we better hope that these park managers don't catch wind of this new Waymarking thing.  Try to explain to them that while Waymarking is the same for us geocachers with regard to virtuals... its not the same for them.

 

geocacher: Please mister park manager.. may I place an ammo can cache here?

park manager: No.  Place a virtual.

geocacher: Oh but they took those away from us... they replaced that feature with Waymarking.

park manager: OK then... place a waymark.

geocacher: Oh but they are not the same.. well they are but they aren't.  You see, they were meant to replace virtuals but they are not virtuals... they are not caches at all.  They are coords to points of interest.  But we are suppose to hunt them the same way we would a virtual... but they are not virtuals.  We can't tell the difference but you should be able to.

park manager:  Leave me!

You do a good debate here but your scenario doesn't seem to reflect that. Is this scenario you and a park manager or is it a really poor debater and a park ranger?

Since I'm a masterdebater I would approach the issue differently.

 

Park Manager: Why not place a virtual cache here?

Me: If I wanted to hide a virtual cache, I wouldn't even be here talking with you. Virtual caches are just marking the coordinates of a place on the planet, and permission isn't needed so long as it's a place where the public's allowed to go. I am here because I want to work with you on a *geocache* placement.

 

I have used this argument successfully in the past with two park managers -- one of whom preferred a virtual, and the other who was bent out of shape because someone else didn't request permission for hiding a virtual cache using information from the park's visitor center. I would use the same argument regarding Waymarking. I *never* plan on asking permission to set up a waymark on public property, whether it's a national park, state park or street corner.

 

Putting waymarks on a separate site and not calling them caches makes it easier, IMHO, to differentiate the game from physical caches. When virtual caches were called caches, and listed right alongside the ammo boxes, it was too easy for land managers to gravitate towards the little ghosties.

[CoyoteRed]

Waymarking isn't geocaching. Period.

 

While Waymarking is going to be an interesting pastime; it can in no way, shape, or form, take the place of finding a physical cache. Can't happen.

 

Additionally, how can you make a virt out of a bunch of trees, shrubs, dirt, and what have you that is available in the middle of the woods? How do you verify the find?

 

No, Waymarking and geocaching are two completely different animals. As virts and physicals have been all along.

[+The Leprechauns]

I could see a category of self guided tours. The waymark would be the starting point of the tour and additional waypoints would be included in the description. In fact, this could tie in to the capability some have asked for of being able to attach additional coordinates to a cache listing (either for a similar purpose or simple to give parking coordinates for a cache).

That is an excellent suggestion, thank you.

[Jeremy]

I could see a category of self guided tours. The waymark would be the starting point of the tour and additional waypoints would be included in the description. In fact, this could tie in to the capability some have asked for of being able to attach additional coordinates to a cache listing (either for a similar purpose or simple to give parking coordinates for a cache).

Routes and tracks do seem to be the natural progression of waymarks and waymark categories. Yes we have considered this while developing the site. We do have more up our sleeves in this area.

[+ODragon]

I'm well aware of that post, and as a cache reviewer I have witnessed firsthand the issue which Jeremy describes there.  But that post doesn't answer my question.  Sherwood Forest has some excellent EXISTING virtual caches that don't fit the mold of a "fountains" or "statues" category.  Where shall he put them?  They aren't necessarily a "surprise" which is a Waymarking category already being discussed for the type of virtual cache where the creator doesn't want to give away the answer.

 

Maybe into a catagory of "things that were virtuals that we can't put into any other catagory".

[+budd-rdc]

Are we trying to drown the merits of good virtual caches with hypothetical debates?

 

I recall reading a Guideline or FAQ somewhere about National Parks banning physical caches due to the burial issue. It's unlikely their stance on physical caches will change with elimination of virtuals, since my guess is that the real issue is land disturbance, not just burial.

 

Some of the virtuals worked around this constraint very nicely, with creative theme and "placements." It would be a shame to see them archived. As I have said repeatedly, why not grandfather them?

 

There are some physical caches that are skirting the updated Guidelines (airports, schools, private property, etc) that still exist due to grandfathering. I think many virtuals are worthy enough to get the same treatment.

Edited September 14, 2005 by budd-rdc

[CoyoteRed]

I recall reading a Guideline or FAQ somewhere about National Parks banning physical caches due to the burial issue. It's unlikely their stance on physical caches will change with elimination of virtuals, since my guess is that the real issue is land disturbance, not just burial.

You are right in that there are issues with land disturbance. However, there are plenty of caches on NPS property with proper permission. There isn't a blanket ban. If you can get permission from the proper authorities, it can be listed.

 

Besides, what's the difference between a virt and physical placed in a sensitive area like Indian burial grounds or archaeological sites? Both will result in the area being disturbed.

 

But that isn't really the issue here. The issue was other parks thinking virts were a viable alternative to physical caches. They are not.

[+mini cacher]

I guess we better hope that these park managers don't catch wind of this new Waymarking thing.  Try to explain to them that while Waymarking is the same for us geocachers with regard to virtuals... its not the same for them.

 

geocacher: Please mister park manager.. may I place an ammo can cache here?

park manager: No.  Place a virtual.

geocacher: Oh but they took those away from us... they replaced that feature with Waymarking.

park manager: OK then... place a waymark.

geocacher: Oh but they are not the same.. well they are but they aren't.  You see, they were meant to replace virtuals but they are not virtuals... they are not caches at all.  They are coords to points of interest.  But we are suppose to hunt them the same way we would a virtual... but they are not virtuals.  We can't tell the difference but you should be able to.

park manager:  Leave me!

You do a good debate here but your scenario doesn't seem to reflect that. Is this scenario you and a park manager or is it a really poor debater and a park ranger?

Neither. Just the average geocacher asking for permission. If the only people talking to park managers were masterdebaters then we probably would already have fewer parks that ban caches. But their not and but we don't. One could assume its because our case was not made to the best of its ability by those who are well equiped to make it.

 

I was simply trying to illustrate the idea that a land manager that is really using the availability of "virtual cache" instead of an "actual cache" to deny placement of an "actual cache" is just as likely to say no since the virtual cache has been taken away and replaced with the (totally new and different) "sport" of Waymarking. Do you really think that the average land manager that has 100 better things to do than listen to some random person with a GPSr trying to explain the sport(s) is really going to understand (or care about) the red hair splitting that is the difference between the virtual cache and the waymark? I doubt it. But maybe I'm wrong.

[+The Leprechauns]

I doubt that geocachers have been affirmatively offering up virtual caches as an "alternative" over the past five years when talking to land managers about hiding caches in parks. Rather, I believe it's that land managers have internet access, and they surf the site independently, or to educate themselves after being contacted by a geocacher. If they see virtual caches on the menu of cache types, and a search on their home zipcode turns up dozens of virtual caches, then they're more likely to ask questions about virtual caches. If there aren't any virtual caches, then this is less likely to happen.

 

I don't plan on handing out literature for Waymarking when I meet with park managers.

[Pto]

If there aren't any virtual caches, then this is less likely to happen

 

If/then statements can sometimes be compared to guessing..... IMO

What if. . . . . . . ? Well, then . . . . . . .

[+mini cacher]

Do you plan on installing internet filters that prevent these same interent surfing land managers from being able to find out about Waymarking? I don't think we can assume they won't know about it. I think we can very much count on them knowing about. The same place that they read about virtuals in the first place they will also read about them being removed and how Waymarking is the alternative being offerd up to us (and them).

[+The Leprechauns]

You have to remember that the Waymarking.com rollout hasn't been finished yet. For us geocachers with registered accounts and logged finds, you'll see a new homepage with a splash screen that links over to the new Waymarking.com site. If you're just surfing, you'll get hit with a popup screen that says "Are you a land manager? Y/N" and if they answer yes, then they're redirected to the secret version of the homepage that doesn't mention Waymarking.

[Jeremy]

I'm sorry. What does Waymarking have to do with hiding a cache in your park?

[+fizzymagic]

...if they answer yes, then they're redirected to the secret version of the homepage that doesn't mention Waymarking.

I think actually there is a far more more evil plan.

 

<conspiracy theory>

You notice how geocaching.com gives free premium accounts on geocaching.com to land managers? Well, when that land manager logs in, TPTB record the IP address, and from that moment on, the main server only sends the super-double-secret home page to that address. In fact, they have a deal with the root domain servers so that if you have one of the "Land managers" IP addresses, you can't even get Waymarking.com to resolve!

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

</conspiracy theory>

 

[Jeremy]

fizzymagic must be destroyed.

 

Seriously, wait until the ones who fly the black helicopters find out there is a cave entrance waymark category.

[+mini cacher]

I'm sorry. What does Waymarking have to do with hiding a cache in your park?

oh... I get it now. The real plan is to talk in circles and play dumb until they give up and magically allow caches in the park again. Great.

 

How can the same people tell us to stop complaining about the virtuals being taken away because they really are nothing more than a waymark that will fit into some category on another site then turn around and try to claim that land managers should now allow caches in the park because virtuals are no longer an option to us? Am I the only one that thinks they will draw the same conclusion? I'm not by any means saying this move will make things worse... I just don't think it will make anything any better. Not enough to use it as one of the justifications for the move or as a consolation prize for those of losing the virtuals.

 

Please somebody tell me this is going to turn out to be one of those Twilight Zone episodes.... Oh... wait.... am I on Punk'd? darn it you crazy cooks, you got me! You didn't tap into my web cam did you? I've typed some of my posts in my underwear and I won't sign a release for that footage.

[Jeremy]

I'm sorry. What does Waymarking have to do with hiding a cache in your park?

oh... I get it now. The real plan is to talk in circles and play dumb until they give up and magically allow caches in the park again. Great.

I'm getting the impression that you're just being obstinate. No, you aren't going to play dumb. You're going to present geocaching as it is - a game where you place a container, mark the coordinates and post them online for someone to go out and find.

 

A container. get it? A cache is a location where something is stored. A virtual cache was just forcing a square peg in a round hole. It never fit. It doesn't fit today.

 

What you're being obstinate about and trying to ignore is that park managers, due to the name virtual cache, consder a virtual cache the equivalent of a geocache. We're making a firm stand now that a virtual cache is not a cache because it isn't. There is no alternative to geocaching.

 

There's no reason why I should bother beating this into your skull further. You obviously don't get it and the real world examples from people who have experienced this issue and understand the reasons why it can't continue the way it has now.

[+mini cacher]

We're making a firm stand now that a virtual cache is not a cache because it isn't.

I understand that and I don't think the land managers will care. Our differing opinions on what makes a cache a "cache" really have nothing to do with this issue. What ever logic (faulty or otherwise) that they have for banning physical caches in favor of virtual caches can just as easily be applied to banning physical caches in favor of Waymarking. They can just pry the square peg out of the round hole and insert this new heart shaped peg. I've watched my 2-year-old do it with her shape sorter... I'm sure they can too.

 

I've gotten past the differing opinions of what a cache is.

I've accepted that virtuals will no longer be allowed.

I'm even ok with them being erased from gc.com completely.

I've given the wm.com beta site a chance, but it didn't meet my WOW factor. I'll check back later though.

But don't insult my intelligence by sugar coating this whole thing by telling me that this move will magically make land owners see the error in their ways and open up their land to physical caches.

 

Now, I actually had to look up "obstinate" just to make sure it was what I thought it was.

1. Stubbornly adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action; obdurate.

2. Difficult to manage, control, or subdue; refractory.

3. Difficult to alleviate or cure

 

I would not say that I am "stubborn" in this point nor am I wicked. I do have my opinion and I have not been convinced otherwise. Which I guess means I am being difficult to manage, control, and subdue.. but certainly not unruly. And there really is no cure for "me" since I'm not generally looked upon as an ailment. So, sure if you think I'm being obstinate because I have not yet been assimilated into the machine that's fine. I can think of a few worse things I've been called for having an opinion, voicing it and sticking to it.

Edited September 14, 2005 by mini cacher

[Jeremy]

But don't insult my intelligence by sugar coating this whole thing by telling me that this move will magically make land owners see the error in their ways and open up their land to physical caches.

I think this is the core point that makes your posts so obstinate. We're not sugar coating anything and we don't expect land owners to see the error of their ways by this single individual thing. But we certainly don't need to add a crutch for them to use as a reason why a cache shouldn't be hidden in their parks.

 

The park managers who use this crutch are (generally) lazy. They consider the virtual cache is a simple solution and it is not. It takes the focus on an alternative and makes it obvious that they should pay attention to the situation.

 

On the other side cachers can look at that gaping area where a cache is missing and say, hey, wouldn't it be great to have a cache there? And they may be active in getting a cache in that park. By putting a virtual there it's like coloring a box in.

 

It's very convenient to look at things in black and white and think that x is going to solve y and z but it won't. There needs to be more than just x to do the job and it's better than sitting on your a.

[+Harry Dolphin]

You sound like you're upset because they stopped putting the strawberry in the neopolitan so you only have chocolate and vanilla left and you won't go to another store where you can get not only strawberrry but also butter pecan and peppermint stick

Wow! How very kind of you to be so condescending!

It's more like they took the pistachio out of the spumoni.

If I wanted to wander abou the Internet looking for 'other' places to use my GPS, Waypointing.com would be lower on my list than Terracaching.com.

My point is that I enjoyed the variety here, that is disappearing. Oh, well.

Another curious observation is the number of sycophants shooting down everyone who prefers the status quo.

[+Prime Suspect]

I love irony.

Edited September 15, 2005 by Prime Suspect

[Jeremy]

If I wanted to wander abou the Internet looking for 'other' places to use my GPS, Waypointing.com would be lower on my list than Terracaching.com.

I consider it our job to make it interesting enough that you would want to visit. The Geocaching Tour Guides category is especially interesting. Of course you can't see Waymarking.com yet but once it is active I'm sure you can comment on it one way or another.

 

My point is that I enjoyed the variety here, that is disappearing.  Oh, well.

 

Personally I find the mystery caches and multicaches the most interesting ones on the site and the ones with the most variety.

 

Another curious observation is the number of sycophants shooting down everyone who prefers the status quo.

 

I have two quick points to make about this quote. First, folks like CoyoteRed are far from sycophants so you're extremely incorrect on that point. Secondly, the status quo defined as things staying the same. On that point I can also say you are extremely, extremely wrong here. It is far from business as usual.

 

This wasn't your point made but the idea of me "sugar coating" anything made me chuckle a bit.

[CoyoteRed]

The park managers who use this crutch are (generally) lazy.

In my experience they've not yet been completely informed. When you explain the mechanics of it all and illustrate it is impracticable, if not impossible, to place a virt in the woods, then they understand.

 

Many parks of the nature we are talking about don't have an object of interest that can't be found simply from a map you get at the gate or visitors center. As many of us know, the point of geocaching is finding an object where the location is described via coordinates so we can use a GPS to find it.

 

Considering the core of the game is placing and finding containers with logbooks and trinkets, a park which will only allow virts or waymarks becomes less valuable to the geocaching community.

 

Then, consider not everyone is into virts or waymarks...

[+mini cacher]

I must appologize. I misread or misunderstood your meaning when you said this:

In fact by removing virtuals from being listed on geocaching.com you open up the possibility of having physical caches in National Parks. Right now the old standby is "why not just have a virtual in a National Park?" Perhaps now the National Park Service will pay more attention to the possibility of allowing caches there.

You were not making the statement as fact... just presenting an idea of what could happen. We agree that it has been used as a crutch. The logic behind it is flawed. If removing virtuals from gc.com is one part of the solution that allows physical caches in places that don't currently allow them then I can't argue with that (since I'm already done argueing that a virtual IS a cache ) But I still think that, regardless of what name the activity is given and what site the coords are posted on, those same (generally) lazy park managers are likely to replace the virtual crutch with the Waymarking crutch using the same flawed logic. For a geocacher, there is no alternative to geocaching. For a land manager, Waymarking does appear to be the alternative.

 

edit: And I'm glad I could give you a chuckle. I certainly don't want to get so serious that we forget this is a game, after all, and is meant to be fun. Different people have fun in different ways. Some look at a round hole and think it would be fun to see all the different shaped pegs they can force into it.

Edited September 15, 2005 by mini cacher

[Jeremy]

For a geocacher, there is no alternative to geocaching.  For a land manager, Waymarking does appear to be the alternative.

Maybe it's just from my experience with working at General Electric in a prior life, but you really must not disregard the strength of the brand "geocaching." Adding "cache" to the word "virtual" is, IMO, misapplying a concept to an existing brand that is not what it is. Although it is true that it is different the subconcious association with a regular geocache muddies the difference from the position of someone who isn't involved in the activity.

 

No, I don't especially think that they'll say "go to Waymarking.com" because the geocacher would say "that isn't what I'm asking you. I'm asking you if I can place a cache on your property. I don't need your permission to post coordinates to a location. (as an aside, I always considered this idea ludicrous with some exceptions like privacy issues).

 

edit: And I'm glad I could give you a chuckle.  I certainly don't want to get so serious that we forget this is a game, after all, and is meant to be fun.  Different people have fun in different ways.  Some look at a round hole and think it would be fun to see all the different shaoed pegs they can force into it. 

 

It's my job to bring a method out of this madness. Change is a pain in the bum but I hardly take it personally. I'd be more worried about crickets in the forums.

Edited September 15, 2005 by Jeremy

[+mini cacher]

No, I don't especially think that they'll say "go to Waymarking.com" because the geocacher would say "that isn't what I'm asking you. I'm asking you if I can place a cache on your property. I don't need your permission to post coordinates to a location. (as an aside, I always considered this idea ludicrous with some exceptions like privacy issues).

to which they can just say: The answer is still "No". The owners of geocaching.com have provided you with the new brand of "Waymarking". It sounds the same to me. Go use it.

 

Remember, we're talking about the lazy crutch users. They have just been handed a new crutch with little or no work on their part.

[Jeremy]

to which they can just say: The answer is still "No". The owners of geocaching.com have provided you with the new brand of "Waymarking". It sounds the same to me. Go use it.

 

Remember, we're talking about the lazy crutch users. They have just been handed a new crutch with little or no work on their part.

You're not very convincing. But it's all speculation at this point anyway. You can agree or disagree but we'll see where it goes, eh? If it goes my way you owe me a Coke.

[+mini cacher]

Of course its all speculation. Waymarking.com is not even public yet. It could totally go the way you suggest or the way I suggest. Right or wrong, next time I'm in Seattle (born and raised just north of it and my bro lives there) you got that Coke.

[+budd-rdc]

fizzymagic must be destroyed.

 

Seriously, wait until the ones who fly the black helicopters find out there is a cave entrance waymark category.

Speaking of fizzymagic, he actually has a genuine Virtual Cache - it has a container (fire station) and a log book (guestbook):

 

World Record Light Bulb

 

For that reason, no amount of black helicopters and right-wing media hypocrisy will be able to dislodge this one to Waymarking, even if fizzymagic is destroyed.

[+Allen_L]

With a container and logbook it sounds like a traditional geocache to me.

[+mini cacher]

fizzymagic must be destroyed.

 

Seriously, wait until the ones who fly the black helicopters find out there is a cave entrance waymark category.

Speaking of fizzymagic, he actually has a genuine Virtual Cache - it has a container (fire station) and a log book (guestbook):

 

World Record Light Bulb

 

For that reason, no amount of black helicopters and right-wing media hypocrisy will be able to dislodge this one to Waymarking, even if fizzymagic is destroyed.

They will just secretly change it into a traditional and give it a size rating of XXXL

[+Nazgul]

Some of the virtuals worked around this constraint very nicely, with creative theme and "placements." It would be a shame to see them archived. As I have said repeatedly, why not grandfather them?

I just wanted to add my voice to this. It's apparently too late for LCs but on the off chance that the decision hasn't been made yet, I strongly prefer that existing virtuals, webcams, and earthcaches be grandathered on the geocaching.com site.

[+Cave Rat]

I got to this point late. Never really messed with Virtuals-but...due to National Park Service- I tryed to conform and place a Virtual in Josuha Tree- Thus was directed to the new site (?). As an old cacher I can see where Visuals can clog up the system. but if you do not like them.. just do not hunt them and they will go away. Did I place my one and only Virtual? yes..but will I do it again ..? probaly not... See GCROZX

Edited October 25, 2005 by Cave Rat